- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:38:52 +0100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian McBarron <bpm@google.com>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Adrien de Croy wrote: > For what it's worth, RFC 1945 (HTTP 1.0) specified the existence of 1xx > response codes, and defined them as provisional, however specified that > there aren't any valid 1xx responses to any HTTP/1.0 request (seems to > be predicting a later iteration of the protocol). > > so anyway, the concept of a provisional (and therefore to be ignored) > 1xx class of responses was defined in 1.0, so if we're lucky then people > who implemented 1.0 proxies read that and they should be able to cope > with them. Unfortunately RFC 1945 says nothing about what 'provisional' means. I don't see any language that even suggests it is followed by another response to the same request. > I think until we adopt proper handling of uploads (i.e. pre-authorised / > negotiated etc) we'll have problems - esp with large uploads and auth. > But there I go flogging that poor dead horse again... I'm looking forward to being invited to that HTTP/2.0 design list when you (or Google/Microsoft/Adobe by the looks of things) get around to it ;-) -- Jamie
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 15:39:56 UTC