- From: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:44:58 -0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke escribió: > > Nicolas Alvarez wrote: >> >> Should the description for 307 status code *explicitly* say that the >> method must be the same? It says the client should use the new URI, >> and without anything talking about methods, implicitly I can guess the >> method shouldn't be changed. But it's not explicitly stated. There >> could be problems with an implementor misreading it. >> >> Maybe the same should be done with all redirection codes. > > Not convinced. > > Do you have any evidence of implementors who actually did get this wrong? No, I don't. Just personal opinion of not seeing it too clear, while looking for the right status code to return from my web app. However, 302 says: "RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed to change the method on the redirected request. However, most existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303 response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless of the original request method." If those RFCs *did* specify that the method couldn't be changed, and some user agents did it wrong at the time, just by extrapolating it looks like it would be even worse if 307 spec doesn't clearly specify it.
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2008 21:46:36 UTC