- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:35:08 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham wrote: >On 26/01/2012, at 1:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> 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"? No, I just don't want any such requirement or suggestion to apply when it is fairly clear that there is no user agent on the other end. -- 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 02:35:22 UTC