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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:24:02 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vjv9ycqo64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:51:04 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> On 29.09.2010 13:28, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> 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).

Those would break today if they use POST in IE and would break everywhere  
else completely. Those would work today if they switched to 307.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 11:24:54 GMT

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