W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:45:27 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111207134527.GB21396@1wt.eu>
Hi Julian,

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:06:05AM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 09:53, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >
> >On 07/12/2011, at 7:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>>I disagree.  All 3xx codes are redirects and only some of those MAY
> >>>be followed with automatic redirection -- the ones with a Location
> >>>header field indicating the preferred redirect target.  The default
> >>>behavior applies if the recipient does not know the new code.
> >>>...
> >>
> >>Indeed:
> >>
> >>"If the server has a preferred choice of representation, it SHOULD 
> >>include the specific URI for that representation in the Location field; 
> >>user agents MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection."
> >>
> >>So for new 3xx responses that come with "Location", UAs MAY use it for 
> >>automatic redirection. But then, they don't have to.
> >
> >So, it sounds like we need a new paragraph (or similar) in p2 8.3 
> >redirection...
> 
> To say what?
> 
> A 3xx with Location is more like 302 then 300?

I don't think we should say something like this. For instance a new 3xx
might provide a Location header which would only be conditionnally used.
Requiring UAs to process 3xx like 302 if they see a Location header seems
problematic for the long term.

Why not say that a Location header might be used in conjunction with new 3xx
headers but UAs must not use it unless they understand this 3xx ?

Regards,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 13:46:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT