W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:59 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <qt73h7p28jvcc91at1r4n8c8cpdsetjfod@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>- what's the problem with the title?

When the redirect target disappears but the redirect does not, then you
might end up with "Permanent Redirect" as title in search results which
looks very broken and is uninformative. A better title would be "Moved 
to <new location>".

>- why do I need to specify encoding? It's all US-ASCII

Because RFC 2854 says it's strongly recommended to use the parameter.

>- validator.nu says it's happy once I had the HTML4 strict doctype; 
>would that work for you?

I can live with that.

>The RFC Editor rewrites this part upon publication.

Or forgets to do so and you forget to check and we end up with bad text.

>> I think you need a better term for "permanent URI". How about simply re-
>> moving the "permanent" and possibly adding "new" to the second instance?
>
>I'd prefer to use language consistent with RFC 2616.

Well, in RFC 2616 it makes a little bit more sense as there you have the
contrast with temporary addresses, but "permanent" is the condition that
the resource has a different address than the current one, but that does
not mean the new address will be "permanent". But oh well, your argument
is good enough.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2012 15:49:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:52 GMT