W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Redirection of a POST as a GET

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:47:38 +0100
Message-ID: <45EFE9CA.2080905@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
> 
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:57:14 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom 
> <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
>> In terms of spec writing it's quite disappointing that this industry
>> can't accept a clear and well specified "thats the wrong thing to do",
>> and instead continues doing the wrong thing forever countless software
>> generations after the implementation error has been pointed out.. This
>> attitude is quite saddening for the future of the web..
> 
> In terms of implementing it's quite disappointing that spec writers 
> don't always see a clear message that the industry doesn't want it the 
> way things are specified and instead requests a different approach.
> 
> 
> (This is also true, for instance, with the fatal error handling rules in 
> XML which clearly don't work for the web.)

Well, I think it clearly does work (minus the Content-Type encoding 
issue) for many things, such as feed reading (*), client-side XSLT, or 
WebDAV. All of these are part of the web.

It doesn't work well for XHTML, but that's because the most widely used 
user agent doesn't support it. I think it's incorrect to blame fatal 
error handling here.

Best regards, Julian

(*) The RSS/Atom support in IE7 IMHO requires well-formed content, and 
gets away with it. Bravo!
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:48:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT