[10524] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel DuBois)
Thu Jan 2 19:06:17 1997
From: dan@spyglass.com (Daniel DuBois)
To: "'Joel N. Weber II'" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>,
"'www-talk@www10.w3.org'" <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 23:44:38 GMT
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-970102233117Z-15819@INET-02-IMC.microsoft.com>
>>There's no reason I see that it's nessisary to send HTTP/1.1 headers
>>in response to HTTP/1.0 requests.
>
>Yes there is. Suppose there is a 1.0 proxy in between a 1.1 client and
>server -- the server definitely may want to include Cache-Control
>headers to optimize the caching in the (potentially) 1.1 client, but the
>server will see 1.0 in the request because of the 1.0 proxy.=20
Even without a proxy, 1.1 headers are likely useful and should be sent. =
A
client may not be comfortable advertising itself as 1.1 because of a few =
of
its deficiencies, but it may implement some of the features the new 1.1
headers deal with, like byte ranging (Accept-Ranges), Cache-Control, =
Vary,
etc.
Congrats on the RFC number everyone! Nice way to start a New Year.
-----
Daniel DuBois, Traveling Coderman www.spyglass.com/~ddubois
