Re: nomenclature

[Roy Fielding <fi...@beach.w3.org>]

>Hmm. We don't send the Allow: header, I don't believe, anywhere. But 
>glancing over the spec quickly, that's the only thing I see that we don't 
>do.

Yep, probably right -- what I left in 1.0 is pretty much NCSA httpd 1.3.

>Well.. there is something that, while it's not really in the spec
>(Appendix A), we've implemnted incorrectly: We should rename
>http/send-as-is to message/http. 

Actually, no.  message/http is (or will be) a real MIME type, which
means you wouldn't want to do things like change

   Status: 302

into a 302 response code.  Note also that message/http could be a request.

>Also... we're not a proxy server. Does that count?

Nope, you don't have to implement the entire protocol.  In fact, an
HTTP/0.9 server is still compliant.

>Sounds good. When do we change the version number in the status line from 
>HTTP/1.0 to HTTP/1.1? At Apache 1.0.1, at 1.1, or at some point in 
>between? I'd recommend the third. When we're first mimimally complient 
>with HTTP 1.1, we should change it.

I recommend not changing it until you need some feature implemented
that requires all of HTTP/1.1's requirements (i.e., content negotiation,
when done right, will also require the cache notification via URI: ...).

In other words, we can do anything we want in 1.0, but saying 1.1 implies
that we must do certain things exactly as specified (which is a little
difficult when the specification is incomplete).

......Roy

Re: nomenclature

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>]

On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, Roy Fielding wrote:

> Actually, no.  message/http is (or will be) a real MIME type, which
> means you wouldn't want to do things like change
> 
>    Status: 302
> 
> into a 302 response code.  Note also that message/http could be a request.

Hmmm. Okay. It just seemed to make sense using message/http. Guess not.

> I recommend not changing it until you need some feature implemented
> that requires all of HTTP/1.1's requirements (i.e., content negotiation,
> when done right, will also require the cache notification via URI: ...).

Right. Which brings up a question for the people who coded Apache (rst 
mainly): I haven't looked, but is there a way for modules to easily 
determine what version of HTTP was used to send the request message? 
Looking over draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-01.txt, I see several places where 
we'll want to respond differently to HTTP/1.0 responses than to 1.1 
and later - with HTTP/1.2, this becomes even more pronounced, I believe.

> In other words, we can do anything we want in 1.0, but saying 1.1 implies
> that we must do certain things exactly as specified (which is a little
> difficult when the specification is incomplete).

Good point. Although, once we do do things exactly as specified, we 
should call ourselves 1.1. Right?

--/ Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
----------------------------/ <http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/>
The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------