httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject Re: MSIE + byteranges
Date Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:39:47 GMT
>> Likewise, since you are now looking at the user agent anyway, it would
>> make more sense to look for "Mozilla/[23]" instead of Range-Request,
>No, it doesn't really, because of all the Mozilla clones. I don't mind
>sending Netscape 4 x-byteranges, even if it supports no-x. Doesn't
>*hurt* anything.

Sure it does -- it allows Netscape to say that we aren't speaking HTTP/1.1,
so they don't have to either.  It is far better to force them to fix
their bugs on each major release, and that is why UA-based hacks should
always include a version number.

The Mozilla clones can go suck an egg; they asked for bugwards-compatibility,
so that's what they get (including MSIE).

>> BTW, coding according to an example in the HTTP spec is no excuse.
>> If they haven't read the MIME spec (which was 1521 at that time),
>I haven't checked the dates, but 2047 is referenced in HTTP/1.1 -
>weren't 2045, 2045 and 2047 all finished at the same time?

Yeah, but the RFC editor changes the numbers to reflect that post-WG.
When we wrote the spec, the only non-draft reference was 1521.


View raw message