- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:50:47 -0700 (MST)
- To: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is
> > intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a
> > specific resource. Since a server's communication options
> > typically depend on the resource, the "*" request is only
> > useful as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing
> > beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the
> > server. For example, this can be used to test a proxy for
> > HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof).
> >
> > So there seems to be some assumption that HTTP/1.1 compliance has
> > something to do with implementing OPTIONS (otherwise how could it
> > be used as a test for HTTP/1.1 compliance?).
>
> Regardless of whether or not you get an error (or even which one you
> get), you still get the servers claimed HTTP version in the response
> line.
>
> I'm not sure what more that paragraph needs to say, or what's unclear
> about it.
What confuses people is probably that the text says "to test for
compliance" rather than saying "to detect HTTP version". Since most
HTTP/1.1 implementations are not HTTP/1.1 compliant but are using
HTTP/1.1 version, the two statements are different.
HTH,
Alex.
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 16:51:21 UTC