Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Scott Lawrence: "CNONCE: proposed resolution"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"

David W. Morris wrote:

> [...] Whether or not a server implements the new CGI
> specification, it must ensure that what it returns as an HTTP/1.1
> response is infact a HTTP/1.1 response.

And the spec does that now - it does not make any special allowance for
responses that originate with some other component or gatewayed system - if
the response is labelled HTTP/1.1 then the spec makes certain requirements
of it.  What more is needed than that?  When we say MUST, we don't need to
then provide a list of circumstances under which the MUST still applies -
unless we allow for exceptions, there are none.

-- 
Scott Lawrence           Consulting Engineer      <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   http://www.agranat.com/

• Next message: Scott Lawrence: "CNONCE: proposed resolution"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "ISSUE: Expect Header Field Problem"