On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:49:38 Jim Jagielski wrote: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=78967 > > That's a 1997 date, btw :)
There were no word about broken browsers in that commit, only about broken proxy. ;) On Tuesday 09 October 2007 22:41:19 Jim Jagielski wrote: > I can't see changing the behavior now, after all these years. > If we want to create a variant that maintains the feasibility of > keepalives, then a big +1 for that, but it should be a new > envvar, not changing the userland experience of an existing one... And if browser asks explicitly for Keep-Alive, why not to satisfy it? You should keep in mind that implicit behaviour is 'Connection: Close' for 1.0 protocol. I think, new envvar will add unnecessary complexity to configuration and redundant processing to servers...
