W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

RE: HTTP 301 responses for POST

From: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:56:20 -0800
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8301DE7F96C0074C8DA98484623D7E515517C2AD6D@DF-MASTIFF-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>

Can you please elaborate further here-- do specific examples come to mind?  

For as long as I can recall, Netscape, IE, Firefox, Safari, etc, have treated 301, 302, and 303 as "redirect with GET" while 307 is treated as "redirect with original method."  This matches Yngve's findings.

I would be fascinated to find a web browser that behaves differently.

Thanks!

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Stenberg
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:08 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP 301 responses for POST


On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen wrote:

> I think it would be an idea to see if the language for web clients can be 
> made closer to the actual situation, and perhaps state that other (non-web) 
> HTTP applications need to specifically define their handling of non-safe 
> methods and redirects.

I don't know what browsers that do what, but as an author of a library that is 
very often used to emulate browser behavior we've had people "get bitten" by 
this (libcurl defaults to POST => GET for 301 and 302) and as a consequence 
recent versions of libcurl can be told to do POST in the second request as 
well when following 301 and/or 302...

Meaning: there are already systems "out there" that do and assume both ways. 
Both client-side and server-side.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 02:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT