W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Issue 160 (Redirects and non-GET methods), was: Proposed fix for issued 140: 301

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:56:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4A641520.6060900@gmx.de>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Manger, James H wrote:
> Browsers (eg Firefox 3.5 & IE8) seem to change the method (eg POST to GET) on 301 "Moved Permanently" redirects as well as on 302 "Found" redirects even with HTTP/1.1 requests & responses, contradicting the spec.
> 
> The spec sections on 301 & 302 each have a note about the mismatches -- but the notes are different. The 302 note says "most existing user agents" change the method, while the 301 note says "some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents" change the method. The 301 note does not seem to reflect reality.

We are already tracking this in 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>.

> I am NOT suggesting a new status code (308 "Permanently Redirect") for unambiguous semantics -- using 307 "Temporary Redirect" with Cache-Control should be close enough.

It seems to be different to me. To give it the desired semantics we 
probably would have to change the spec, in which case a new status code 
seems more plausible to me.

> Perhaps the new text for the 302 note should also be used for the 301 note [issue #140 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/140].

We can't use the same text, as there is no replacement status for 301. 
That being said, we should make sure that the Note reflect reality.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 06:57:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT