- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:53:26 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20.09.2010 16:54, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 19.09.2010 12:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >> ... >> The suggested fix for 1) is to allow UAs to do what they do today. >> However, it's not totally clear how far we want to go with that: >> >> 1a) We know that all major browsers rewrite the request method to GET >> when receiving a 301/302 on POST. >> >> 1b) Browsers do differ in their behavior for XmlHttpRequest, though. IE >> only rewrites POST, and leaves other methods alone. Other browsers seem >> to rewrite all methods (minus HEAD?). The fact that IE does only rewrite >> for POST suggests that breaking the RFC 2616 semantics is not needed for >> the other methods. >> >> 1c) There are other UAs that do not rewrite the method name at all, and >> indeed may be broken if they would start to do that (WebDAV clients >> getting a redirect on PROPFIND come to mind; I also see this behavior in >> Microsoft's XmlHttpRequest ActiveX control, though). >> >> My proposal is to say SHOULD NOT change the method, except for GET which >> can be changed to POST for compatibility with broken web content (which >> should use 303 instead). >> ... > > This one is pretty urgent, as HTNL5 allows PUT and DELETE in HTML forms. > Browser implementers who actually do that will have to decide what to do > with 301s and 302s. > > See related Mozilla bugzilla comment: > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583288#c32>. > ... In the meantime, I have raised bugs against Webkit/Chromium//FF/Opera, pointing out that they do the method rewriting for more methods than it seems to be needed for, considering that IE only rewrites POST (see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160> for the various issue links). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 13:54:12 UTC