- From: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 23:44:38 GMT
- To: "'Joel N. Weber II'" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'www-talk@www10.w3.org'" <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
>>There's no reason I see that it's nessisary to send HTTP/1.1 headers >>in response to HTTP/1.0 requests. > >Yes there is. Suppose there is a 1.0 proxy in between a 1.1 client and >server -- the server definitely may want to include Cache-Control >headers to optimize the caching in the (potentially) 1.1 client, but the >server will see 1.0 in the request because of the 1.0 proxy. Even without a proxy, 1.1 headers are likely useful and should be sent. A client may not be comfortable advertising itself as 1.1 because of a few of its deficiencies, but it may implement some of the features the new 1.1 headers deal with, like byte ranging (Accept-Ranges), Cache-Control, Vary, etc. Congrats on the RFC number everyone! Nice way to start a New Year. ----- Daniel DuBois, Traveling Coderman www.spyglass.com/~ddubois
Received on Thursday, 2 January 1997 18:45:18 UTC