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: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:46:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4F23D1F3.4070100@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 18:30, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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)."
>
> ?
> ...

I see no negative feedback and got one off-list "yes", so here's the 
proposed change:

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/332/332.diff>

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 10:46:58 GMT

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