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

#332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:57:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4F185993.5060803@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-14 16:50, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> The fallback requirement
>>>     Unless the request method was HEAD, the representation of the response
>>>     SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new
>>>     URI(s), since most user agents do not understand the 308 status code
>>>     yet. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for
>>>     a user to repeat the original request on the new URI.
>>> strikes me as a bad idea. It's a transient problem so it should be con-
>>> ditioned and how widely supported this is, and it's only useful if you
>>> have some HTML implementation on the other end or an interactive user; a
>>> web service not meant for interactive use where you can be sure that the
>>> code is supported, because, say, you control the client, is unaffected,
>>> and if you add that as another exception you basically end up saying you
>>> can do this so your site works better with legacy clients in some situ-
>>> ations and making your site work good is probably a good idea, so I'd
>>> prefer just saying that. I don't really want to ponder whether I should
>>> send this hypertext response in response to an OPTIONS request in 2015,
>>> just because your specification says I should.
>> Again, this is consistent with RFC 2616 and HTTPbis (for now).
>> We may want to tune the text in HTTPbis (please follow up over there),
>> in which case I'll apply the same changes to the spec for 308.
> Here we are.

Indeed; I forgot that I was cross-posting :-)

I have raised this point as 
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 17:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC