Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29117 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66260 invoked by uid 1010); 30 Apr 2007 23:49:45 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66244 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2007 23:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Apr 2007 23:49:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 204.11.219.139 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.11.219.139 mail.lerdorf.com Received: from [204.11.219.139] ([204.11.219.139:55708] helo=mail.lerdorf.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 98/20-42224-79086364 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:45 -0400 Received: from belowcolor.corp.yahoo.com (belowcolor.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.53.78]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.lerdorf.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l3UNnbqS014062; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:49:37 -0700 Message-ID: <46368091.4050606@lerdorf.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:49:37 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christian Schneider CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <4636763B.3000305@lerdorf.com> <46367EC3.4020505@cschneid.com> <46367F96.6080205@cschneid.com> In-Reply-To: <46367F96.6080205@cschneid.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/3184/Mon Apr 30 06:51:57 2007 on colo X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Setting HTTP results code vs. HTTP type From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) Christian Schneider wrote: > Christian Schneider wrote: >> version for which the server is at least conditionally compliant, and >> whose major version is less than or equal to the one received in the >> request." > > Oops, missed the "major" version part there. Sorry for that, should read > things more carefully, especially at 1:30am :-) > > I still think it breaks the other RFC though. And it definitely breaks > some HTTP/1.0 clients if chunked transfer is done because of upgrading > the response. This came up many times on the Apache lists years ago, and Roy Fielding who wrote that spec repeatedly said it was fine to reply with a 1.1 response to a 1.0 request. -Rasmus