W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: User confirmation and 307 redirects

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:33:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4C77A2A2.5060007@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:24 GMT