W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: 301/302

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:33:14 -0500 (CDT)
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970905142155.18334B-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4342
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Scott Lawrence wrote:
> >   If a server gets a request labeled HTTP/1.1, it should
> >   treat it as one and respond with 1.1; the complexity of looking at
> >   User-Agent values and making some decision based on them is too much
> >   to contemplate (especially since many browsers lie in thier
> >   User-Agent headers).
> Practical experience has shown us (the Apache Group) that it is not
> possible to deploy a fully compliant HTTP/1.1 server without making
> allowance for broken browsers.

Yes, but this is not an issue of broken browsers.  It is a question of
*all* correctly implemented browsers, and which versions of them
support which version(s) of HTTP.

I have the greatest respect for the Apache project.  What you have
achieved is truly remarkable and I am a big fan.  But if your 1.1
servers use 303 and 307 then as soon as 1.1 proxies appear there will
be a lot of broken transactions.  I see no way around this except
never to use 303/307 and revert to 302.  Perhaps I am wrong.  I hope

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 12:37:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC