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

Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:26:58 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94A3F15E-E9B2-4760-B9FE-A0BDB2D8EAF9@mnot.net>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On 26/01/2012, at 1:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * 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.

Are you suggesting that the server try to figure out whether the client is an "interactive user agent"?

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 02:27:25 UTC

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