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

Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:30:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4F218DB1.4070103@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-26 03:22, 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.

Can we simply say:

"A response payload can contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink 
to the new URI(s)."


Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 17:31:00 UTC

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