[Xitami] A little off-topic but....

[TW]

hi,

afaik things go like this:

>I have no problem using the 1.0 spec, but I don't know how! So, I changed 
>all the header commands to
>a full URL.

That's the correct thing to do. It's up to the client and not up to the 
server to suggest the protocol version to use. They both agree on the 
latest protocol they both understand if not (_both_) are setup to do different.
HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2616) requires a full URI for redirection. If a redirect 
occurs, the client receives a HTTP status response of 302 (Found) instead 
of the usual 200 (OK). Check your Webserver-Logs to see that.

BTW, even HTTP/1.0 (RFC 1945) already required a full URI for the Location 
field too.

So, by definition of RFC 2616, a compliant client receives 302, and checks 
the location field for an absolute URI. A client _can_ additionally 
implement detection of relative URIs, but the info provider (you) cannot 
rely on it.

>Does anyone have any idea where and if I can change to the HTTP/1.0. 
>specification? Also, since I
>use SSL on one subdomain, doesn't SSL require the 1.1 specification?

For test purposes you can try to fetch a redirecting resource on the 
command line via Telnet and GET / HTTP/1.0 or try to find a very old 
browser for testing.

I was wondering myself why a lot of php scripts found on the net make use 
of relative URIs in the location header-field, despite the respective 
specifications. Didn't really figure out, but came to think that earlier 
php-versions probably _translated_ relative URIs to absolute URIs before 
returning them to the client. Newer versions (of php) maybe don't do it 
anymore to give more transparency to the redirection process.

Concerning the SSL question, I think SSL doesn't have anything to do with 
HTTP. SSL is not "layered" upon HTTP but very low level on tcp/ip.

Hope this helps.
tony