W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: 301/302

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:42:27 -0500 (EST)
To: fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01ILTJVRQM7M00517U@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4000
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>As Foteos hinted, swapping the meaning of 302 and 303 is a solution
>to the implementation problem.  I don't think it would affect Apache much.
>However, it would require universal agreement among the rest of the
>implementers, and it would require recycling HTTP/1.1 as Proposed
>and not as a Draft Standard.  It is not something to be taken lightly.

	Unfortunately, when I get stuff I wrote back from a list server
and re-read it, it often becomes clear that I don't understand what
I'm talking about.  For a 301 on a POST, does that really mean
substitute the new RequestURI for all future submissions, or only
when the content is identical to that of the current submission?


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 1997 16:49:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC