- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:33:54 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24.08.2010 17:03, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:18:57 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> FYI: I re-ran the test and sent an HTTP trace offlist. >> >> Anne: regarding XHR -- a silent rewrite of the method is invisible to >> the caller and thus a bug. On the other hand, silently following the >> redirect for an unsafe method is still a problem, no matter how we >> phrase it in httpbis. The safest approach for XHR would be to allow >> implementations not to follow the redirect, and let the caller handle >> it instead. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.1.1 does not really make a > requirement on UI of user agents. Why is it so much stronger for > redirects? It makes no sense. Especially if we at some point give script > authors control over handling redirects so they can implement following > redirects themselves. I really have no idea why the requirements have been phrased the way they are. I do agree that more consistency is needed here. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 11:34:38 UTC