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

Re: The meaning of 301 (was Re: 301/302)

From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 15:39:30 -0500 (CDT)
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970730150403.3631M-100000@huitzilo.tezcat.com>
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> >	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?
> >> 
> >> All future submissions -- 301 is a "fix your damn links" response. ;)
> >> 
> >> ....Roy
> >
> >That makes sense, although I doubt it is implemented like that anywhere.
> 
> 	Current versions of Lynx have it implemented it like that.  

Not for POST submissions, as far as I can see.  Lynx is actually
converting the 301 to 302 internally in that case.  Try test form
at <URL: http://sol.slcc.edu/~kweide/test301main.html>.

       Klaus

> They
> do not "fix your damn links" in the sense of editing source files, because
> that would be inapproriate or barred for a large percentage of the Lynx
> user base, but for the remainder a user's session the 301's Location
> will be substituted for the original RequestURI.  That's why it seemed
> like a good idea to confirmed that this is really intended for a 301 on
> a POST.
> 
> 				Fote
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 1997 13:40:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:50 EDT