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

Re: 301/302

From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 15:36:01 -0700
Message-Id: <340DE651.25DD9CCC@netscape.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>, Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4298
Ok, lets assume for the moment that we adopt the 307 proposal.

Now, Im joe CGI script writer, and Im writing a new CGI script.
I want to make the client do the "redirect with GET behavior".
So, I read the spec and figure out what to do.
Hmm.. 302 is deprecated, so I shouldnt use that.
Ahah! 303, thats what I want..
So, I code my script to respond with a 303, confident that the 
 client will come back with a GET for the location: I specify.

90% of the browsers today dont support 303 (yet).
If this isnt backwards incompatible, what is?

So, I could either:
 1) send 302, ( yeah it says 'deprecated', but it will live forever,
		it will never be 'safe' to send 303 )

 2) only send 303 if the request was HTTP/1.1
This gets ugly..

It seems to me that the "swap" proposal only leaves an ambiguous
 case, with the potential to fail for implementations who
 follow the 'interim spec' (prior to the swap), but remains
 mostly functional with 90% of the existing browsers.

The "307" proposal, will allow currently functioning CGI
 scripts to continue to work, but it will be a very long
 time until a CGI implementor can feel comfortable with
 returning a 303.

Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>		      Netscape Communications Corp.
                                "You can land on the sun, but only at night"
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 15:38:51 UTC

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