- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:50:57 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham wrote: >One (of many) of the issues with 1xx responses is that people don't know >how to surface two responses to one request in APIs and tools. > >I think we could make things a bit easier for folks if we stated that >the headers in a 1xx response are semantically not significant; i.e., >it's OK for APIs, etc. to drop them on the floor, because the only >information is in the status code. > >This would mean that people shouldn't put headers on a 1xx response and >expect applications to see them -- which I think is already the case >today. The WebSocket protocol as currently proposed makes use of headers in the 101 Switching Protocols response and I suspect "Sec-WebSocket-Protocol" will end up with the application somehow, but I haven't looked lately. I also note that with protocol switches, you don't get two responses, just the one and after that it's no longer HTTP, so maybe they can be special under such a rule. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Monday, 4 July 2011 23:51:17 UTC