httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: MSIE + byteranges
Date Sun, 16 Feb 1997 05:47:39 GMT
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >> 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.

Agreed, but I disagree that they'll "say" we aren't speaking
HTTP/1.1. They'll be compatible with HTTP/1.1 if they want to, and if
they want to screw it up, history has shown that Apache's
implementation of things has never had an affect on them.

It goes back to what I said earlier: Request-Range indicates support
for draft-luotenen-byte-ranges-02 (or whatever the name was), which is
seperate and distinct from HTTP/1.1, and Apache supports it.

You had no problem with this when I stuck it in last week; why is it
that now you suddenly do, after I decided that we should check for
MSIE's user-agent?

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

That seems like a rather cynical attitude. They are asking for
compatibility with Netscape for the reason that many HTML generators
unfortunately check for Netscape when generating HTML. This is not
their fault, it is the fault of the providers who do this. The small
browser manufacturers (and I include MSIE in this) do not have the
clout to force all the content providers to change their code, so they
are left having to change theirs.

In other words, they are asking for compatibility with Netscape's
HTML, not Netscape's protocol bugs.

Or, to put this another way: are you vetoing the patch I introduced
earlier (which takes out the quotes, adds a check for MSIE, but leaves
the Netscape-check as is, with Request-Range) assuming I change it to
"MSIE 3", or are you just complaining about it?

Speaking of voting, does anyone but Dean want to +1 that patch? Or did
I miss someone else? Or don't people care anymore? I'd like to get
this solved in 1.2b7, so people can use PDFs with Apache. I'm sure
Adobe would appreciate that, at least.

> >> 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.


Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message