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 03:35:08 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <coe1i798qkm4u2itge8h61o51c4g24o75s@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* 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 GMT

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