[11474] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: HTTP RFC 2616 Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clinton Wong)
Wed Feb 9 15:58:53 2000
From: Clinton Wong <clintdw@netcom.com>
Message-Id: <200002092051.MAA12005@netcom.com>
To: deancron@microsoft.com (Dean Cron)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: www-talk@w3.org ('www-talk@w3.org')
In-Reply-To: <AB0BB46CFA0AD211A3B10008C728E7F10CA5DBF8@CLT-MSG-01> from "Dean Cron" at Feb 09, 2000 10:29:47 AM
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
Dean Cron writes:
> In section 5.1 of RFC 2616 (
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.1
> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.1> ), the line
> for an HTTP PUT command specifies that HTTP/1.1 be appended to the end of
> the command. Would a web server platform that does not support the
> HTTP-version append be out of compliance with the RFC, or is this an
> optional command for older web server platforms?
To summarize your questions:
1. If a web server does not support HTTP/1.1, is it non-compliant
with the HTTP/1.1 spec?
Yes. HTTP/1.0 web servers are non-compliant with the HTTP/1.1 spec.
However, the interaction between HTTP/1.1 clients and HTTP/1.0 servers
should be graceful.
2. Is the PUT method not valid in older versions of HTTP?
PUT is valid in HTTP/1.0. It probably is not valid in HTTP/0.9.
3. Is the PUT method optional in HTTP/1.0?
The implementation of PUT is optional in HTTP/1.0. It is
also optional in HTTP/1.1.
Clinton
