- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:46:11 +0100
- 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 UTC