[10503] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: HTTP response version, again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Sun Dec 22 07:19:57 1996
From: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: dwm@xpasc.com (David W. Morris)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:10:41 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk, brian@organic.com, hedlund@best.com,
dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com,
www-talk@www10.w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961221085842.2095A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com> from "David W. Morris" at Dec 21, 96 09:08:04 am
David W. Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > My browser keeps a list of sites recently visited and their HTTP version
> > precisely so it can avoid confusing them.
>
> What will it do in the future when an HTTP/1.2 site declares itself?
Treat it as a 1.1 server and send it 1.1 requests, since the major
version matches (it is 1) and the minor version is >= 1. Obviously, if
a process starts to define HTTP/1.2 I'll look at adding an
implementation of it.
> Until this discussion started, my interpretation was that n HTTP/1.0
> request should always receive HTTP/1.0 in the status line.
I don't agree - but I don't have the documents here to back myself up.
--
Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~snb94r/ http://delenn.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
