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

Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:22:59 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <evd1i79piq99mhfmdoth8pbtcsv9s2kait@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>    The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
>    response.  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).
>
>Björn says this is too strong; maybe demote to "ought to"? (The same 
>applies to 302 and 307).

I think this should say something along the lines of "if the response
body is rendered by an interactive user agent then the response body
could be a hypertext document containing a link so users of old clients
that do not support the status code as specified can easily follow the
redirect". I think the "unless HEAD" is too broad since it would apply
to cases where the hypertext document would be of no use (like for an
OPTIONS response) and this is not required for interoperation among im-
plementations and does not deal with "harm", so the use of RFC 2119
"SHOULD" is wrong.
-- 
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 Thursday, 26 January 2012 02:23:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT