Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1 problems maybe?
Hi Shawn, --- Shawn McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never sent attachment to this group, hope it is ok. It is generally fine, although I think most people prefer that you trim your code down to the most relevant bit and include that in the body of the email. I got a bit lost in your attachments. That was a bit too much information; I found myself forgetting what the problem was. :-) If you will recall this: > > > With NO HTTP 1.1 > > > [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.0] > > > > Can you provide the full request also? That might reveal something > > important. I meant to ask only for the full request rather than the request line only. The way you trimmed everything else was great. The HTML is especially useless and bulky. :-) So, can you provide your original example/question and only add the full HTTP request? I think that will reveal something to someone who can help you out. Chris = My Blog http://shiflett.org/ HTTP Developer's Handbook http://httphandbook.org/ RAMP Training Courses http://www.nyphp.org/ramp -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1 problems maybe?
Sorry, here is zip with data from mozilla also. mozilla works with HTTP 1.1
enabled in preferences.
-Shawn
"Shawn McKenzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've never sent attachment to this group, hope it is ok.
>
> Any help is much appreciated as I am not well versed in HTTP and diffs
> between 1.0 and 1.1.
>
> Thanks!
> Shawn
>
> "Chris Shiflett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --- Shawn McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, thanks Chris. Could it be gzip problems?
> >
> > That's a possibility, but I've never heard reports of IE having trouble
> > with gzip.
> >
> > > I captured with HTTP Interceptor and here are the server response
> > > headers prior to the actual HTML:
> > >
> > > With NO HTTP 1.1
> > > [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.0]
> >
> > Can you provide the full request also? That might reveal something
> > important.
> >
> > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:32:00 GMT
> > > Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3
> > > X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3
> > > Connection: close
> > > Content-Type: text/html
> > >
> > > actual html from page
> >
> > There's no Content-Length header? That's very odd. I would think this
> > would be the one that doesn't work. :-)
> >
> > > With HTTP 1.1
> > > [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.1]
> > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:21:40 GMT
> > > Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3
> > > X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3
> > > Content-Encoding: gzip
> > > Vary: Accept-Encoding
> > > Connection: close
> > > Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> > > Content-Type: text/html
> > >
> > > 7d3
> > >
> > > actual html from page
> >
> > Well, there are a finite number of differences in the responses. Chunked
> > transfer encoding is a very big difference, but again, I've never heard
of
> > IE having trouble with that either.
> >
> > At any rate, one method of debugging would be to use the header()
function
> > to specify your own headers, incrmentally trying to make your response
> > appear identical regardless of which version of HTTP is being used.
> >
> > Although it's not in the examples you provide, it would also be worth
> > noting whether IE sends the Host header when not using HTTP/1.1. This
> > header was not required in HTTP/1.0, and a lack of it could result in
your
> > Web server using a different virtual server.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > =
> > My Blog
> > http://shiflett.org/
> > HTTP Developer's Handbook
> > http://httphandbook.org/
> > RAMP Training Courses
> > http://www.nyphp.org/ramp
>
>
>
begin 666 http-headers.tar.gz
M'XL("'B[LC\``$1E.(!T+W<&]+R?57=[;9C.VZ/,Y-=JI-V
M?U5=?[[ZJNJKKZJK?ZW2:#*6B,J:2G4[9E_8*\L_$LE$(I/)K"38D1J[)M+Y
M9'8ED<]G,]ET.IM#_V0JFTRO)&Z ERM'W[(EDY 5TS!FEOVZ^Y_28[_<('&]
M?T9S&W'RH-$XBD-S6 V59)GV[ )Y(_Z&ZX@>2'[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]VK=60R<6-:.E
M-C2<`JD:SU1-D^*96(+*9-<++%)3E5=,086J35(-I;<
M)+$:Y+U[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ZG\C>6PT],"Q(K"N?4?V92JV83NW5T*ZAZU2V54,OD%W-
ML.AJZ,B4VEVI0'0C*DMRAV(@[EMAIL PROTECTED]:G4TB*5U5+\JI3D=)97)?
M?WJ6K35*F_9(J^X].JLV\)1SFZ0/Q2M6
MG_:>2?OWT\VGO>YAXRQ9W6MGOOZTTZDURA>/G\KIQ]VWG];V'Z9KIR>#VNG#
M"W8^,RZJ>T8.SL'ATQ)<>SO*N\?GC_8[6O/T)%?;*V5K[=?3>_"_&EH-^>O
M[M NM>*EOFTTD(Q;]J7F_,9DRYI61\>T14UJ%DC'MGN%>'Q$A&[BTZNRTHI6
M#45MJ52)UE5=ACNG5(F09(K4C'[EMAIL PROTECTED]"5C::T5R3-Y54.B&:RLO1)DX3T8RV<0M:"&B3Q/06(LO1
M3++I:I/<2VPBJR&0%NGK)[EMAIL PROTECTED],@Y-2UH,L30M4MB=3!9$"YIJ:9E$RB%
MINK4(D:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<%42&49!/5)@/#/+,@[EMAIL PROTECTED](%D(^-OJD
M"X8(^; /(25=(29%L\0FMD'[EMAIL PROTECTED]<.D1)%L">N&,P6M=1 AA\C/+V>RL034
MX7]]Z_D='-0__K>/[OQA[_F=YW_TQ96#QP]7#+A^^8^_N/(EN)Z\]W %_7\#
MSL%[#U5N_SFLO K[+YM*I=.>_9=+);C]E\X*^^\E'._=-XTN.:8?%@@JCEG]
MW5,6[T.WX602^S(Y?&[EMAIL PROTECTED]'4.KE[HJL7
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/HS.E8>C7T;O3(&&"WB^Y<%OPW_+I;YKH;O&Q0"-'&90\8L&$HC'?L
MKH:=>.LK>X>[C<='9>"\>D".3G8.*KLD'(W'3].[\?A>8X_?`!62) U3TBT5
MDY:T>+Q<"V^'MC AO$"7AHNMVAK=!FZB-1 (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]"O.[X:VJN5&B4DJ
M6GYX4GE4#/L9#)/=0]#UM48Q['&Z2>2.9%K4+E;JA]'U]>Q&-!F>E%#YW:/*
M<;GN2R/AA:N5JN5B&.X>GASOEJ-8:%\X$,-)%:BQX'N5>N.XLG/2J!S6?*'W
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'Q[Y0$^4P%FGW\.CQ<67_0<,7;]?H79IJNV.#UK['&TGS
MDLR3VCOEQZ>'QWM^`=3HP(H0G?T"S<@(:5"YHQLPQEU&H$$,Z0=0CTQ/1YB6
M=DC,%B*R7Y>-".EU>KI+1#FU3^E9A+39+]([EMAIL PROTECTED]'$ >J
MWK^(X"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"!2]2-ECV03,[EMAIL PROTECTED]'*1[E^EE#3R#OFQ3"WS\N
MER.DQ>A=H]OMZZH-I9:'9/4H'2'='OS<-\Q^%P+S"W-9CA.N.WU-H[:J1TC3
MHW8,R00&FOS"7);CM)[EMAIL PROTECTED]@)'WHXY"7Y5S?H:[EMAIL PROTECTED])<]W6CRXI^
M6"UCX9GK'05_]L#C#*FRKF'/ICJO6#KJK( >-"70WN<05/4[CDRC;4I=,*ZA
M8#V_HPPS&XHY49?8E_"W+;FTQ1UP.:5-IC:@6P%E,0K\F+3@>H#7@>/>[YM8
M>R?'6)&,/@1N-&PBSE5IID (.REL=DT96^#.+C"G]=O8&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ZKCP:_6N(8M
MUW>/*T=C"A;,/1.$;[0E'121.:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I[96A#=T_/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/+VB\A]5
MZI5&M'2_4?:KYR39*SVNCP[EMAIL PROTECTED],&F.V#O09?M,1
MN-53%2KIL1&3;0FE01%M-0WEDME4Q? O<6L]3,YA+#L#=YH=82([EMAIL PROTECTED]'&,
M0V>.'6'2;._"\&N"3XL=$("V[*ID0G=!"P:F.#V?BS4JG[O+R Y%;
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1 problems maybe?
--- Shawn McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, thanks Chris. Could it be gzip problems? That's a possibility, but I've never heard reports of IE having trouble with gzip. > I captured with HTTP Interceptor and here are the server response > headers prior to the actual HTML: > > With NO HTTP 1.1 > [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.0] Can you provide the full request also? That might reveal something important. > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:32:00 GMT > Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3 > X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3 > Connection: close > Content-Type: text/html > > actual html from page There's no Content-Length header? That's very odd. I would think this would be the one that doesn't work. :-) > With HTTP 1.1 > [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.1] > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:21:40 GMT > Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3 > X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3 > Content-Encoding: gzip > Vary: Accept-Encoding > Connection: close > Transfer-Encoding: chunked > Content-Type: text/html > > 7d3 > > actual html from page Well, there are a finite number of differences in the responses. Chunked transfer encoding is a very big difference, but again, I've never heard of IE having trouble with that either. At any rate, one method of debugging would be to use the header() function to specify your own headers, incrmentally trying to make your response appear identical regardless of which version of HTTP is being used. Although it's not in the examples you provide, it would also be worth noting whether IE sends the Host header when not using HTTP/1.1. This header was not required in HTTP/1.0, and a lack of it could result in your Web server using a different virtual server. Hope that helps. Chris = My Blog http://shiflett.org/ HTTP Developer's Handbook http://httphandbook.org/ RAMP Training Courses http://www.nyphp.org/ramp -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1 problems maybe?
Yes, thanks Chris. Could it be gzip problems? I captured with HTTP Interceptor and here are the server response headers prior to the actual HTML: With NO HTTP 1.1 [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.0] HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:32:00 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3 X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html actual html from page With HTTP 1.1 [From Req: GET http://mckenzies.net/nuke69/ HTTP/1.1] HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:21:40 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) PHP/4.3.3 X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.3 Content-Encoding: gzip Vary: Accept-Encoding Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html 7d3 actual html from page Thanks! -Shawn "Chris Shiflett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Shawn McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get a blank page (no error) in IE6. If I go to IE settings and > > disable use HTTP 1.1, then all loads well in IE. > > > > Any ideas on things to look at or a method to troubleshoot??? > > Can you capture the HTTP transaction with IE and with another browser for > comparison? Ethereal is a good tool for obtaining this data if you don't > already have a favorite method. > > Chris > > = > My Blog > http://shiflett.org/ > HTTP Developer's Handbook > http://httphandbook.org/ > RAMP Training Courses > http://www.nyphp.org/ramp -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1 problems maybe?
--- Shawn McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get a blank page (no error) in IE6. If I go to IE settings and > disable use HTTP 1.1, then all loads well in IE. > > Any ideas on things to look at or a method to troubleshoot??? Can you capture the HTTP transaction with IE and with another browser for comparison? Ethereal is a good tool for obtaining this data if you don't already have a favorite method. Chris = My Blog http://shiflett.org/ HTTP Developer's Handbook http://httphandbook.org/ RAMP Training Courses http://www.nyphp.org/ramp -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] HTTP1.1
I have used this in the past... Foo http://www.foo.com/";> and as Cal mentioned, use somefile -Steve -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1
Acutally, I think Im ok, because, the dynamic links, adjust to where ever it lives in the file system. I defined a constant and use the constant in links, so no matter how you rearrange stuff, it would still work. So if the only reason is piece of mind, then Im in peace with myself... :) Thanks for your input. Cal Evans wrote: >It's not so much a no-no as it is bad form. It makes it very difficult to >re-arrange your site at a later date or move that page. > >For your own peace of mind and those who come behind you, absolute links in >the form of href="/correct/path/to/the/file.php" should be used. You can >omit the http:// and the host name if you like. > >=C= > >* >* Cal Evans >* Journeyman Programmer >* Techno-Mage >* http://www.calevans.com >* > > >-Original Message- >From: Gerard Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:40 PM >To: php-gen >Subject: [PHP] HTTP1.1 > > >Kinda off topic, but it deals with a php script Im writing. >Ive been using dynamic strings to create relative links like -> >somefile > >I was wondering if this is a no no according to http 1.1 specs. >ie absolute links -> >http://host/correct_path_to_file.php";>somefile > >I briefly looked through through the specs, but it didn't say that >links/urls shouldn't be formatted like the first example above... > >Any insight, would be grateful. >Thanks > >-- >Gerard Samuel >http://www.trini0.org:81/ >http://dev.trini0.org:81/ > > > >-- >PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > -- Gerard Samuel http://www.trini0.org:81/ http://dev.trini0.org:81/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] HTTP1.1
On Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Gerard Samuel wrote: > I was wondering if this is a no no according to http 1.1 specs. > ie absolute links -> > http://host/correct_path_to_file.php";>somefile > > I briefly looked through through the specs, but it didn't say that > links/urls shouldn't be formatted like the first example above... I think it is okay as long as you are staying within the same virtual host. Erik Price Web Developer Temp Media Lab, H.H. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] HTTP1.1
It's not so much a no-no as it is bad form. It makes it very difficult to re-arrange your site at a later date or move that page. For your own peace of mind and those who come behind you, absolute links in the form of href="/correct/path/to/the/file.php" should be used. You can omit the http:// and the host name if you like. =C= * * Cal Evans * Journeyman Programmer * Techno-Mage * http://www.calevans.com * -Original Message- From: Gerard Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:40 PM To: php-gen Subject: [PHP] HTTP1.1 Kinda off topic, but it deals with a php script Im writing. Ive been using dynamic strings to create relative links like -> somefile I was wondering if this is a no no according to http 1.1 specs. ie absolute links -> http://host/correct_path_to_file.php";>somefile I briefly looked through through the specs, but it didn't say that links/urls shouldn't be formatted like the first example above... Any insight, would be grateful. Thanks -- Gerard Samuel http://www.trini0.org:81/ http://dev.trini0.org:81/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
