Re: Versioning -semantics ?

--------
Julian Reschke writes:
> Am 02.02.2021 um 15:31 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp:
> > --------
> > Julian Reschke writes:
> >> Am 02.02.2021 um 14:09 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp:
> >>> Have we thought about how future incompatible changes to -semantics wi=
> ll be versioned?
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Have we *ever* done a change to the "semantics" part of HTTP in the pas=
> t?
> >
> > "PUSH" did ?
> >
> > It went 180 degrees counter to the "request-response" model we had
> > and which we still espouse in the -semantic draft.
>
> I would call that an extension of HTTP semantics, not an incompatible change.

Call it what you will, it disproves that the semantic layer has been forever cast in stone[1].

Personally I think the most sensible thing to do is to make it the job of the messaging layer (or lower) to negotiate it, and simply noting that expectation, *should* it ever happen, works for me.

Issuing a standard without even having thought about revisions would be standardization malpractice IMO.

Poul-Henning

[1] And if it had been, we wouldn't need to produce 200 pages about it now :-)


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 16:34:27 UTC