Matthias Bauer wrote: > Michael C. Harris wrote: > >>> But sites that support multisite would need to be able to parse that >>> data. Is it unreasonable to require that a web server needs to support >>> HTTP 1.1 to use Habari? >> I think it's perfectly reasonable to only support HTTP 1.1 enabled >> servers. > > This isn't about servers, this is about clients. If the request is made > via HTTP 1.0, that's what we get (and that is also what the server must > respond in).
Well, ok, but as I understand it... If a HTTP 1.0 client makes a request of a server that has Habari installed on a shared IP (like most sites are configured these days), then there's no chance of it routing the request to the correct virtual host. Using a HTTP 1.0 client makes it impossible to access sites that are served from (as an example) Apache VirtualHosts, since the host header is used to resolve the documentroot. Isn't that right? Or did I completely misunderstand something? From a server perspective, I think our focus would be better applied by assuming that the site is served from a virtual host, since that will be the configuration of the majority of our users. For sites that are meant to be accessed via HTTP 1.0, where there is a single site behind a single IP address, is it possible to drop something like this into the config?: $_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'] = 'example.com'; Seems like a simple fix for those edge cases, if it works. Owen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
