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

Re: 301/302

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:36:13 -0700
Message-Id: <3406197D.89F12803@netscape.com>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4228

David W. Morris wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Larry Masinter wrote:
> > > satisfies all of the requirements that are MUST for 1.1, then you
> > > need to label the response as 1.0.
> >
> > OK. It still seems to me that the correct thing to do is to fix CGI. A
> > simple thing to do would be to add a version header:
> >
> > CGI-Version: 1.1
> (nb., this suggestion mixes CGI and HTTP versions ...)
> >
> > Absence of the header means the script is 1.0 compliant. This is not an
> > HTTP header - the server would strip it, I assume, and doctor other
> > headers as needed.
> I think this issue is much larger than whether the server know that
> an individual CGI script complies with HTTP/1.1 in what it generates.
> This just as easily fixed with out band server configuration choices.
> As a separate subject, it may be appropriate for some group to standardize
> the CGI API and include a version, but that isn't our task and such a
> change won't help this problem...
> If a script was written to empirical behavior, it (actually, the target
> being referenced) may expect a 302 response to POST to return as a GET.
> That server may be accessed by a proxy which changes the HTTP status line
> version to 1.1 making any necessary updates to header fields.
> If a *client* which sees the 302 status on what is marked as an HTTP/1.1
> response adopts rigid 302 handling, an existing HTTP/1.0
> server/application will break. Who gets blamed? It works with my old
> browser (still if I re-install it, etc.) and not the new one. In the
> user's mind the blame rests with the browser, not an out of date server.
> The 307 proposal works. Lets do it.

I'm definately coming late to this discussion, but I have some strong
thoughtsto offer.

99.2% of the browsers in use today including all versions of netscape and IE
reissue POST redirects with a GET.  It would be incredibly fool hardy to
try and change this behaviour now.  It is far easier to swap the meaning of
303 and 301/302 than it is to fix every CGI in the world as well as every old
browser in the world.   I doubt that any commercial vendor is willing to
release a product that will break a large number of sites simply to claim
compliance with this spec.

How is this issue going to get resolved?  This tread died out almost a month
ago yet there is no solution yet.  The current situation is unworkable.

Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 17:49:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC