Re:The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
by proto_lambda on Friday October 21, 2022 @09:08AM
(#33287609)
> I feel like the author must know this
The author does know this, it's a reference to a couple paragraphs above:
> [...] and the HTTP protocol version, which is a fixed string which is always set to HTTP/1.1 and nothing else.
> (cool bear) But what ab-
> IT'S SET TO HTTP/1.1 AND NOTHING ELSE.
Thanks, missed that.
Re:The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
by fasterthanlime on Friday October 21, 2022 @09:48AM
(#33287962)
You know how some movie fans will sometimes pretend the sequels to some franchise don't exist? HTTP is the opposite.
So HTTP is the old school Star Wars fans pretending the prequels don't exist?
Re:The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
by HideousKojima on Friday October 21, 2022 @02:56PM
(#33291744)
Nah it's the Buffy TV show fans ignoring the movie
> Host: neverssl.com
> This is actually a requirement for HTTP/1.1, and was one of its big selling points compared to, uh...
> AhAH! Drew yourself into a corner didn't you.
> ...Gopher? I guess?
I feel like the author must know this.. HTTP/1.0 supported but didn't require the Host header and thus HTTP/1.1 allowed consistent name-based virtual hosting on web servers.
I did appreciate the simple natures of the early protocols, although it is hard to argue against the many improvements in newer protocols. It was so easy to use nc to test SMTP and HTTP in particular.
I did enjoy the article's notes on the protocols however the huge sections of code snippets lost my attention midway.