- 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
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 so. John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 12:37:01 UTC