- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:58:52 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:41:11 +0100, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >> It basically can't be implemented by web browsers. See for instance >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109553 ... We've tried it >> as well, broke the web, and then backed it out again. > > No. It is pathetic that some vendors choose to drop features rather > than deploy version-specific workarounds, but not entirely unexpected. Vendors have tried and have tried to deploy workarounds. By blacklisting/whitelisting servers etc. Didn't work out. >> Perhaps Content-Base or so can be resurrected... > > That is impossible without changing the HTTP version number. It's not like HTTP is validated or anything. The whole HTTP specification seems quite open to incremental additions and changes. Anyway, I'm saying we can't implement it. You say we can do trickery. I'm not that concerned with what the (eventual) HTTP specification says on the matter, but it would be nice if it reflected reality (e.g., implementations). If that's impossible, fine. I suppose we have to deal with the way we have dealt with HTML over the past eight years or so... (Trying to get interoperability based on real world usage and deployment without any standards body to help with that.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 21:59:05 UTC