Graham Leggett wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2007 9:16 am, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>
> >> Host: kpic1 is a HTTP/1.1 feature. So this is non-sensical.
> >
> > Some pre-1.1 servers have required this header, I don't see how the 1.0
> > spec
> > forbids it and by using it you can utilize name-based virtual hosting so I
> > disagree with your conclusion.
>
> HTTP/1.0 doesn't support name based virtual hosting. If wget works now,
> it's only working by accident.
It is not an either-or proposition.
When a client sends HTTP/1.1 in a request it is telling the server that
it can correctly process any valid HTTP/1.1 response. Sending HTTP/1.0
doesn't mean that the client can't use HTTP/1.1 features (like the Host
header). The client is merely asking the server to return a valid
HTTP/1.0 response.
And the servers are doing exactly that. They also process the Host
header as HTTP/1.1 spec says they should because they happen to support
that feature. They don't have to be HTTP/1.1 compliant for that feature
to work.
--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
