- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:11:33 +0100 (MET)
- To: akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org
Alexei Kosut: > >On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Koen Holtman wrote: > >> Dave Kristol: >> > >> >Let me make some assumptions. They may be controversial, but I haven't >> >seen substantial contradictory evidence: >> > >> >1) The HTTP/1.1 draft is clear about which HTTP/1.1 headers cannot be >> >sent to HTTP/1.0 clients. >> > >> >2) If an HTTP/1.1 server sends a response labeled as HTTP/1.1, but with >> >only HTTP/1.0-compatible headers, HTTP/1.0 clients will understand >> >it. >> >> Ugh. I don't know what twist in this thread caused you to make those >> assumptions, but they paint a completely wrong picture of the actual >> situation. > >No, I don't think that's wrong. Dave's point 2) refers more to the >"HTTP/1.1" label than the headers, ?? I think it refers to headers. >and point 1) is correct. Actually, Dave's point 2) is correct too, but it fails to mention that 1.0 clients will *also* understand responses which include all kinds of headers *not* defined by HTTP/1.0. >There are >some headers that don't work with HTTP/1.0. I guess they *could* be >sent... but page 23 does say "A server MUST NOT send transfer-codings >to an HTTP/1.0 client," for example. A transfer encoding is an encoding of the message body, it is not a header. Even AOL's proxy did not break on the presence of a HTTP/1.1 header. It broke on the the presence of the HTTP/1.1 version number. >Alexei Kosut Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 1997 09:13:12 UTC