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

Re: Issue 160 (Redirects and non-GET methods)

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:16:36 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKKGJKSN5OxLUwdLffRS2t8mQe8=nc+DH9WBWs@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 29.09.2010 13:28, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:16:57 +0200, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> IE breaks the spec in fewer cases than the others, and gets away with
>>> it. I think that's an indication that breaking it in all cases isn't
>>> needed.
>>
>> Agreed, but it is way more ugly than what the other browsers do in my
>> opinion and might cause people to avoid using POST (in favor of CHICKEN)
>> just because of this rather than simply start using 307 which will work
>> everywhere.
>
> I'm not concerned so much about new stuff; yes, we should recommend 307 if
> you want method preservation.
>
> I *am* concerned about cases where 301 and 302 *today* are used as described
> in RFC 2616 (non-browser scenarios).

Would a reasonable solution be to say that the user agent MAY change
the method to GET.  Servers that desire predictable behavior from user
agents w.r.t. method rewriting SHOULD use 303 or 307.

Adam
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 01:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT