nomenclature

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>]

On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> A note on nomenclature...
> 
> I've gotten the suggestion, from someone at the W3C, that when we have
> a stable 0.8.x, we might be better off calling it 1.0, and calling the
> experimental release series with the new features we're planning 1.1.x
> instead of 0.9.x, to give the impression that *we* believe that the
> final 0.8.x thing is a stable, usable product (there may be people who
> could use it, but are currently scared off by a 0.x version number).
> 
> This wouldn't be a change in plans, just a change in names.
> Just a thought...

I guess I must admit a general phobia of declaring something "1.0", but 
no reason to let my phobias prevent apache from being recognized as a 
usable product :)  Anyways, here's something I thought of just now:

1) spend a few more weeks squishing bugs and adding a few small cosmetic 
features here and there (like scoreboard.pl, which I haven't gotten to 
work yet), and *make sure it implements all of the HTTP/1.0 "BCP" draft*, 
and call that Apache 1.0.  Is there anything not in Apache now that 
should be in HTTP/1.0 servers, even as a non-required option?

2) When the HTTP 1.1 draft is released, start implementing items from it
(like digest auth) and revising current items that need to be revised
(like content negotiation).  Start releasing those new modules and 
bugfixes as Apache 1.0.x, with Apache 1.1 as the "stable" implementation 
of HTTP/1.1 as it moves to last call.

3) Repeat for HTTP/1.2 and Apache 1.2

Thoughts?

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

Re: nomenclature

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>]

On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> > 1) spend a few more weeks squishing bugs and adding a few small cosmetic 
> > features here and there (like scoreboard.pl, which I haven't gotten to 
> > work yet), and *make sure it implements all of the HTTP/1.0 "BCP" draft*, 
> > and call that Apache 1.0.  Is there anything not in Apache now that 
> > should be in HTTP/1.0 servers, even as a non-required option?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. 

Excellent suggestion.

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

No, only if we were selling ourselves as one.  Of course, if someone 
wants to implement a proxy module, I would certainly vote to include it 
in /contrib.

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

Re: nomenclature

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

On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> 1) spend a few more weeks squishing bugs and adding a few small cosmetic 
> features here and there (like scoreboard.pl, which I haven't gotten to 
> work yet), and *make sure it implements all of the HTTP/1.0 "BCP" draft*, 
> and call that Apache 1.0.  Is there anything not in Apache now that 
> should be in HTTP/1.0 servers, even as a non-required option?

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.

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. 

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

> 2) When the HTTP 1.1 draft is released, start implementing items from it
> (like digest auth) and revising current items that need to be revised
> (like content negotiation).  Start releasing those new modules and 
> bugfixes as Apache 1.0.x, with Apache 1.1 as the "stable" implementation 
> of HTTP/1.1 as it moves to last call.

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.

> 3) Repeat for HTTP/1.2 and Apache 1.2

Sounds good.

--/ 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. /--------------