[10516] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexei Kosut)
Tue Dec 31 21:06:17 1996
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:57:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>,
Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>,
http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961231163936.27146A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, David W. Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote:
>
> > compatible server. In this scenario, it would be neccessary for
> > HTTP/1.1 servers to always use HTTP/1.1 in the response.
>
> Another choice is to stop overloading a single value for two
> purposes ...
> 1. Declaring the servers capabilities
> 2. Labeling the level of the response
>
> A new optional header for example could advertise the server's
> capabilities and the status would be just that ... status describing
> this response.
Yes, that possibility was also in my message.
> The beauty of the extra header is that it would allow a response
> to a HTTP/1.x request to note that HTTP/2.x is also supported ...
Hmm. Isn't this where Upgrade: was intended to be used? Something like:
GET /something HTTP/1.1
Upgrade: HTTP/2.0
and then the server would respond with 2.0 if it supported it? That's
what section 14.41 of the HTTP/1.1 spec would seem to indicate.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> The Apache HTTP Server
URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/
