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

Re: 301/302

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 13:54:29 -0500 (EST)
To: MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <01IN8WB58G7E0008ID@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4317
Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU> wrote:
>	If a POST is converted to GET, which by definition is safe,
>can the proxy just act on it on behalf of the browser?  Only the
>307 for an unsafe method really needs to go back to the browser for
>a confirmation or cancel.  Let's extend this question to 305 (and
>306 if that gets past LAST CALL).  If the method is safe, should
>the proxy act on it?  If the proxy is obligatory (e.g., a firewall),
>the user otherwise is up the creek without a paddle.

	Ugh, that would mean the proxy has to add a Content-Base
or absolute Content-Location, and you can't count on HTTP/1.0
browsers dealing with it as intended.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Thursday, 4 September 1997 11:01:18 UTC

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