W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2003


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
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0311251446510.97307@measurement-factory.com>

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.


Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 16:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:24 UTC