Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29119 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75918 invoked by uid 1010); 1 May 2007 00:14:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75903 invoked from network); 1 May 2007 00:14:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 May 2007 00:14:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lists@block-online.eu; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lists@block-online.eu; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain block-online.eu from 81.169.146.162 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lists@block-online.eu X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.146.162 mo-p00-ob.rzone.de Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [81.169.146.162] ([81.169.146.162:57869] helo=mo-p00-ob.rzone.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5A/C1-42224-35686364 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:14:13 -0400 Received: from ollie.block.home ([84.63.190.110] [84.63.190.110]) by post.webmailer.de (fruni mo62) (RZmta 5.8) with ESMTP id E063acj3UNidc3 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 02:14:08 +0200 (MEST) To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:12:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <46367F96.6080205@cschneid.com> <46368091.4050606@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <46368091.4050606@lerdorf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200705010212.52622.lists@block-online.eu> X-RZG-AUTH: jsAgD75E4FZRsMYse5W8COLJ40bV42cELvihCND/Uu2brXmKBiVpKnOrVeZ1 X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Setting HTTP results code vs. HTTP type From: lists@block-online.eu (Oliver Block) Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2007 01:49 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf: > 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. Did he give any rationale for his view? Regards, Oliver