W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Describing current practice for 301 and 302

From: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:01:39 -0800
Message-Id: <v0214040ead355eaf8d96@[165.227.10.43]>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>If so, why on earth would they do that?
>
>Historical reasons, I believe.  A very old version of the HTTP
>specification could be interpreted as requiring a change to GET on
>redirection.
>
>> And, more importantly, is it worth
>>noting if it doesn't make much sense?
>
>It does make some limited sense for the 302 code, as is shown by the
>introduction of the 303 code in the 1.1 draft.  But whether or not is
>makes sense is orthogonal to whether it is worth noting.
>
>It is worth noting because most user agents in use now change the POST
>to a GET.  Thus, there is a discrepancy between current practice and
>the 1.0 informational definition.  It is important to warn about such
>discrepancies in the 1.0 document.

This sounds OK to me, if it is done by a fair number of well-intentioned
(if not misguided) HTTP/1.0 clients.

--Paul Hoffman
--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 15:15:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:44 EDT