tis 2007-03-06 klockan 16:18 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > > redirection of a POST as a GET etc. I'm not aware of a full list though, > > but such a list would probably become apparent once you start doing > > actual testing. > > Is that about status 302 vs 303? Is there an open issue around here? Well, kind of. The specs and real world is still not aligned, just as in the case of Content-Location. RFC2616 added the 303 and 307 status codes trying to solve the problem by defining new status codes replacing the earlier. But it did not change 302 to reflect what the majority of the implementations actualy do other than adding a note that many implementations is broken and uses GET instead, and neither did it mark 301/302 as unusable.. And with most implementers (all sides) still following the majority instead of specifications.. And as result In response to a POST 2616 Most User-Agents 301 POST* GET 302 POST* GET 303 GET GET? 307 POST POST? * with a note that there is implementations using GET. ? Possibly not implemented As a result very few expects implementations to follow the RFC wrt 301/302 responses, and the new status codes is not used very much as few see a need for them.. Here is some stats from a sample of 3xx responses to little more than 3 million POST requests: 301 1100 302 78793 303 664 304 25209 307 31 the complete breakdown in status codes in response to POST can be found at http://www.henriknordstrom.net/code/http_post_status-20070307.txt Regards HenrikReceived on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 19:09:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:30 GMT