I don't understand this comment. RFC7230 doesn't recommend sending HTTP/1.0.
It certainly allows it as a workaround for a broken client, but
force-response-1.0
is not recommended for general use.
Roy
> On Jan 18, 2016, at 1:14 PM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: covener
> Date: Mon Jan 18 21:14:46 2016
> New Revision: 1725349
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1725349&view=rev
> Log:
> emphasize http/1.0 clients, mention RFC7230 calling this
> envvar a SHOULD.
>
> --This line, and those below, will be inored--
>
> Menv.xml
>
> Modified:
>httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/env.xml
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/env.xml
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/env.xml?rev=1725349&r1=1725348&r2=1725349&view=diff
> ==
> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/env.xml (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/env.xml Mon Jan 18 21:14:46 2016
> @@ -322,12 +322,15 @@
>
> force-response-1.0
>
> - This forces an HTTP/1.0 response to clients making an HTTP/1.0
> - request. It was originally
> - implemented as a result of a problem with AOL's proxies. Some
> + This forces an HTTP/1.0 response to clients making an
> + HTTP/1.0 request. It was originally
> + implemented as a result of a problem with AOL's proxies during the
> + early days of HTTP/1.1. Some
> HTTP/1.0 clients may not behave correctly when given an HTTP/1.1
> - response, and this can be used to interoperate with them.
> -
> + response, and this can be used to interoperate with them. Later
> + revisions of the HTTP/1.1 spec (RFC 7230) recommend this behavior
> + for HTTP/1.0 clients.
> +
>
>
>
>
>