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]