From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199612211734.MAA28911@shado.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: HTTP/1.1 header problem (fwd)
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:34:05 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com (Jim Jagielski)
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.HPP.3.95.961220221402.15146A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> from
 "Alexei Kosut" at Dec 20, 96 10:18:45 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> The most annoying part of this whole thing is this: if AOL had had
> code written a year ago that was super-strict about requiring HTTP/1.0
> as the response, that would have been okay, since it would have been
> an honest bug (or at least a mistake). But apparently they've
> decided that, in a recent upgrade, they are going to dicate that this
> is not legal.
> 
> My favorite part is the message quoted in
> http://www.apache.org/info/aol-http.html that says "We wanted to
> [become] a de facto standard." Uh huh. Right. If there's a de facto
> standard, it's Apache. We were here first.
> 

What is it with companies that think that "standards" are those
things that they decide should be done and hell with everyone
else.

Is it ANY wonder why AOL is held in such little regard among the
Internet community?

I say we hold firm... AOL is wrong wrong wrong

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"