On Wednesday 10 October 2007 16:25:58 Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote: > > 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... > > And I think changing the behavior of an existing envvar from > how it's been used for ~10years is *sure* to create *more* confusion.
The behavior is wrong since 2001-03-16 and since then it *sure* made and keeps making confusion. About 6 years.
