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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:32:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA5C6BF.50103@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 01.10.2010 13:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

No, those do not break at all. Browsers aren't the only HTTP clients we 
need to consider.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 11:32:58 GMT

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