Martin Atkins schrieb:
...
I think it would be the responsibility of that hypothetical future HTTP
spec to describe backwards-compatibility requirements. Having everything
that depends on HTTP have language about handling a possible future
extension of HTTP that doesn't even exist is likely to result in lots of
conflicting requirements.
Or is there actually a new version of HTTP under discussion somewhere
that I've missed?
...
There is indeed a revision of HTTP/1.1 under discussion (see HTTP
mailing list <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>, issues
list <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/> and draft
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>),
but the spelling of "referer" so far hasn't made it onto the issues list
(and I doubt it will) :-).
Best regards, Julian
