Talk:Hypertext Transfer Protocol/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

URL = Uniform or Universal? URL page shows both

Uniform Resource Locator shows up twice on this page, yet the URL page itself uses Uniform in the title, then Universal in the first sentence, which is right? 41222-KenS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2004

Universal was renamed to Uniform, but is still in common use. See (uniform) and (universal) (david) 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HTTP cookie

I have submitted the article HTTP cookie for peer review (I am posting this notice here as this article is related). Comments are welcome here: Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1. Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "delimition" actually a real word?

In the "HTTP connection persistence" section, the article states "There is a HTTP/1.0 extension for connection persistence, but its utility is limited due to HTTP/1.0's lack of unambiguous message delimition rules".

Is "delimition" really a word? Maybe it should read "... lack of unambiguous rules for delimiting messages" -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2006

I was wondering about that too. I fixed it. Catamorphism 06:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Page title

This page is currently at HyperText Transfer Protocol which seems to be an odd title since I don't see why it should be capitlized this way. I checked RFC 2616, w3c and did a google search. The Google search revealed that some indeed use thsis capitalisation but that the official sources don't. To me this use of camel case seems unjustified. But since so many use this capitalization I wonder why? Jeltz talk 14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The same thing happened with XML, where people wanted to write the language name as eXtensible Markup Language in order to "explain" the initialism. I feel the page title of this article should be Hypertext Transfer Protocol because that's what HTTP stands for. HTTP != H.T.T.P.—mjb 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have put this page on requested moves now. Jeltz talk 09:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have requested a move from HyperText Transfer Protocol to Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Jeltz talk 09:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional page regarding HTTP Headers

I suspect this question comes mostly from my inability to search, but I figure I'll ask it anyway. I've tried looking, but can't seem to find one, so I'll ask here: is there a comprehensive list of HTTP headers on Wikipedia that's available? For example, an indepth list of the header commands such as Host, Content-Type, Connection, etc. I realize, of course, that they're in the RFC2616 specs, but I'd like to know if there's one on Wikipedia. If there isn't, I'll most certainly make one. verix 00:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1999? HTTP 1.1 vs 1.0?

People considering using name-based shared IP hosting need date/time context info -- need to know when the transition to supporting this feature happened in the real world. Which versions of which browsers do and don't support this feature? What other software that still might be in use does not support this feature? Since 1.1 was last issued in 1999, it seems like we can assume that all major software issued after that has the feature. But the feature was optional at least for some years previous? When did the feature first come into general use, on what software? Is there an easy way to test a piece of software to see if it supports this feature? 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent connections in 1.0?

I can't find something about that in the RFC. AFAIK this was introduces in 1.1 -- 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Seems strange that this page doesn't have a "history" section like so many other wikipedia pages about specific technologies. Tim Berners-Lee is only mentioned in a link at the bottom! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2007

I agree, the WorldWideWeb article states that Tim invented HTTP years before the first browser, prompting me to wonder what he could have been using HTTP for. The version history section is immensely insufficient. 11:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DONE! (Please go ahead and improve it) AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupte (talkcontribs) 10:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps a note that PUT is not supported by any common Web browser? (You can put a HTTP method on a form or entity, but unless the method is POST, your web browser will send a GET message). (david) 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

gamana caranya pendaftaran di STPN? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

urls do not necessarily map to dirs and files.

>Request line, such as GET /images/logo.gif HTTP/1.1, which >requests the file logo.gif from the /images directory

is in the article but "/images/logo.gif" is actually just a string that does not mean that logo.gif is inside the directory "images" nor that a directory "images" exists - and it could still be a 200-response. I know, this is not really important to understand what http is but I feel that a lot of people get that wrong and it might help someone trying to learn about http to give correct information on this issue (maybe even mentioning apache's mod_rewrite if that's not too far off). I'd suggest some text but my english is too bad for encyclopedic usage. 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) -- 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and so I have modified the article. Not only does a URI not necessary correspond to a directory structure, but it does not necessarily correspond to a particular "file" on the server. The way it was written was highly misleading IMHO because it could have given the impression that a URI somehow dictated how web servers should relate URIs to files. mmj (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HTTP 1.2?

I've written an article about where I see HTTP heading. It's called HTTP 1.2 -- What it needs. If anyone thinks it's relevant, and wants to post this on the article page (maybe in an "External links" section), that would be great (I'm not allowed to because I wrote the article).

-- TimNelson (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Has this article been cited by other authorities on the subject, and how is it notable? That's probably the rationale for whether it could be included mmj (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, you're right about the criteria for inclusion, and I agree it probably doesn't qualify. Thanks for your work on this. -- TimNelson (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

why am i being brought here?

I am getting a weird error. When i put this address into the address bar, http// it is bringing me to the wiki on http. Can anyone else confirm this? Softimage has nothing to do with wikipedia. Its like the address bar is ignoring everything after the http and searching just that. Any thoughts anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the ":" in that address - it should be "http://", not "http//"; presumably your browser is then getting confused by the "//", searching for just the "http" part, and bringing you to the first result - this Wikipedia page. Hope that helps! - IMSoP (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Web applications and GET..

this article says:

By far the most common method used on the Web today. Should not be used for operations that cause side-effects (using it for actions in web applications is a common misuse)

I am very new to web services so maybe I don't know, but if the get method can not be used in RESTful web services, then what is to be used in its place?

--Sylvestersteele (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RESTful web services which should use a method other than GET (or HEAD), the most common being POST, for any actions which affect the state of the server. The quote above about GET being unsuitable where the operation causes side effects is misleading, by the way; a GET can contain side effects such as increasing a site's hit counter or recording the hit in a log, or serving advertisements to the user (which may cause a transfer of money between advertiser/publisher). mmj (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Idempotent, PUT and DELETE?

Methods PUT and DELETE are defined to be idempotent

Huh? Isn't it exactly the opposite actually? (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's correct. Idempotent in this context means that if you do the exact same request again, or any number of times, the resulting state will remain the same as if you had done it once. An 'idempotent' method is a different concept to a 'safe' method, in that an idempotent method may still have unsafe consequences - these consequences will, however, be the same no matter how many times the same request is repeated. Accidental double-submitting, with PUT or DELETE, is not a problem. mmj (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the flag

I took down the {{morefootnotes}} flag because it's no longer is applicable. Now if someone could just create an understandable infobox for it. -Alan (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

History? Development?

Damn, this article is chock full of technical details about HTTP but completely lacking in human details. The earliest year mentioned is 1999, and I know for sure that HTTP is older than that. How about a little more on the history, first developers, etc?

hg —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DONE! (And please feel free to add to or improve it) AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupte (talkcontribs) 10:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Why no mention of the next version?-- (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no next version of HTTP. It's an editorial process. Kbrose (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird redirection

I typed in http// & it redirected to this wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's missing a colon, so the address is not valid. When I tried it out it my browser sent an HTTP GET request to Google requesting /search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=http. The server returned a 302 Found status code, redirecting to This behaviour is a feature of your browser, intended to get you where you want to go if you enter an invalid URL rather than just getting a DNS error telling you the server doesn't exist. Reach Out to the Truth 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

HTTP 0.9

"The original version of HTTP, designated HTTP/1.0, was revised in HTTP/1.1." - This is incorrect. The original version of HTTP was called "HTTP", but people started calling it "HTTP 0.9" at about the time the standardization effort began. I can't cite anything, because I only know this because I used software like the NCSA server; I suppose that would count as "original research", but maybe somebody who has a citation can add it. (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

#1 on Google's hit parade: begins "This document defines the Hypertext Transfer protocol (HTTP) as originally implemented by the World Wide Web initaitive [sic] software in the prototype released. This is a subset of the full HTTP protocol, and is known as HTTP 0.9." RossPatterson (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. When I read the statement that HTTP 1.0 was the first version, immediately the article lost its credibility for me... It lost it even further for me when the most important feature of HTTP 1.1 was described as "reuse the same connection to download" - while it is true the default responsibility of connection closing changed in HTTP 1.1, the most important and most visible change was by far the addition of named virtual hosts (the "Host:" request header). Nyh (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypertext Transfer ProtocolHTTPWP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. cf. HTML. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure about this one.. although yes it is quite well-known and firmly entrenched in most of the populations mindset by now with it appearing in everyone's address bar.. almost all the other common protocol names appearing in the {{IPstack}} template, FTP, NNTP, POP, TCP, ICMP, they're are all expanded from their abbreviations.. so it wouldn't be consistent. And the most commonest one of all that pretty much every internet user types daily: WWW redirects to World Wide Web, so why should HTTP and HTML be the sole exceptions? I know the category is Category:HTTP but I don't think this article title needs to match the category name, it's more important to be consistent between the article titles rather than the category names, and I think we're allowed to be a little less formal with category names anyway. -- œ 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persistence vs. Stateless Protocol

Someone needs to clarify the apparent contradiction between HTTP 1.1 being stateless vs. persistence (which keeps the TCP connection open). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agupte (talkcontribs) 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, because stateless is the protocol, not server. The history of TCP socket is normally disregarded on processing of an individual query, so it does not depend on previous queries in the same socket. It is just this that means statelessness. Nevertheless, Web server environment may be stateful (in case of so named Web 2.0 it usually is stateful). Please, do not sign yourself in articles. Your contributions are listed in the history forever. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the sig - that was a mistake. Also I moved History back to the top because most Wiki pages start with history (it makes sense also, as long it comes after the main definition and intro).
If it is a persistent connection history may be discarded but the connection is alive and so you don't need to use sessions and cookies etc. because you can recognize a user based on the connection (at least theoretically you can). However, the main point is that stateless protocols create no load on a server after each transaction (request/response) is complete, whereas persistent connections do. This changes the paradigm of HTTP considerably.
Agupte (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

GET vs. POST limitations

Should we mention that POST allows theoretically unlimited amounts of data to be sent, whereas GET is limited? Tisane talk/stalk 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not. BE BOLD! (as long you have any reference for that. more textual fragments without any reference aren't good for that article) mabdul 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Never know what http meant until now

There are some very useful subjects brought up here which is very beneficial and informative.I am now learning the basics of computers and the information helps alot.Continue more of these discussions as i would be dropping by regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patience9 (talkcontribs) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

HTTP for begginers

Where can find additional information (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)