Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version
Dave Kristol (dmk@research.bell-labs.com)
Tue, 14 Jan 97 10:23:01 EST
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU> wrote:
> [...]
> The HTTP-Version is not a "single field", so arguments suggesting that
> there be a separate field for "capability" are groundless. The major
> version defines the message format and the minor version defines the
> capability within that format. Were it not for that fact, there would
> be no reason to have a separate major and minor version. Personally,
> I cannot conceive of any other interpretation of what is in the RFC, and
> I know that is what I intended when I wrote it two years ago, so I don't
> understand the need for this debate unless people want to change the
> intended design of HTTP/1.x. If so, I think it is incumbent on those
> people to prove that the change is necessary and not simply "consistent
> with what you would expect". It is easier to change expectations than
> it is to change HTTP/1.x.
I don't think the discussion is over the major/minor version structure.
I believe I understand (and heartily defend) the version number structure.
Notwithstanding Roy's intent two years ago, what is abundantly clear is
that the intent does *not* come through in the text, or there wouldn't
be two good-faith interpretations with (I'll venture) comparable
numbers of proponents, each claiming the "preferred" interpretation.
Both sides have made their arguments, and I won't rehash them. I will
argue that the words in the text should be clarified either to take one
of the positions or to state explicitly that a conforming
implementation can follow either position. While I find the latter
choice perverse, at least it will avoid finger-pointing by one camp's
saying the other violates the spec.
Dave Kristol