httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <>
Subject Re: HTTP/1.1 header problem (fwd)
Date Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:05:54 GMT
Nathan Neulinger liltingly intones:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that they have a point. It's not
> really reasonable to say that an http/1.1 server should respond to a 1.0
> request with a 1.1 response, since that obviously is a major change in the
> operating functionality according to the 1.0 spec.
> Yes, according to the 1.1 spec, it should be able to respond with either,
> but this seems like a change that should never have been made - since it
> plainly goes against the statement about it being compatible with the other
> versions of the same major version.
> Granted, up till seeing this comment I was in agreement with everyone else
> about this, but this throws a minor wrench in the works.
> -- Nathan
If that's what the version header is supposed to mean, yes, it's a mistake.

Trouble is, the version number is an advertisement of the sender's capability,
not some kind of brain-damaged handshaking mechanism.

The language in the HTTP/1.1 spec is the same language in the HTTP/1.0
spec, a/k/a RFC 1945. Again AOL also admits blocking HTTP/0.9, again
in violation of the spec. They want to force the Net to use *only*
HTTP/1.0, until they decide it's OK to upgrade. That viewpoint is,
frankly, a crock o' crap.

Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA
And now, on a lighter note:
USER, n.:
	The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
		-- Dave Barry, "Claw Your Way to the Top"

View raw message