- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:57:46 +0200
Martin Atkins schrieb: > ... > I think it would be the responsibility of that hypothetical future HTTP > spec to describe backwards-compatibility requirements. Having everything > that depends on HTTP have language about handling a possible future > extension of HTTP that doesn't even exist is likely to result in lots of > conflicting requirements. > > Or is there actually a new version of HTTP under discussion somewhere > that I've missed? > ... There is indeed a revision of HTTP/1.1 under discussion (see HTTP mailing list <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>, issues list <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> and draft <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>), but the spelling of "referer" so far hasn't made it onto the issues list (and I doubt it will) :-). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:57:46 UTC