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

Re: #238, was: User interface requirements for redirecting to unsafe methods

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:56:48 -0700
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <56AC02A5-DF02-4BD4-97E3-AB56532E6942@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Oct 23, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2012-10-23 09:12, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 23/10/2012, at 6:00 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> the text you complained about back then has been rewritten a few months ago. Please check the WGLC draft.
>>> 
>>> With respect to tracking: I think this is issue <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/238>, see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0928.html>.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> I do see, however, that we have this language at the top of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21#section-7.4>:
>> 
>>> If the required action involves a subsequent HTTP request, it MAY be carried
>>>    out by the user agent without interaction with the user if and only
>>>    if the method used in the second request is known to be "safe", as
>>>    defined in Section 5.2.1.
>> 
>> MAY... if and only if is a badly constructed requirement, and it also goes against the resolution of #238. I'll enter a WGLC issue to correct that.
> 
> Indeed; when we resolved #238 we didn't fix all places where this was mentioned.

I only checked the first reference, which was apparently unfixed. I have now double-checked the others and they do seem to address the issue.

Thanks to Mark for offering to raise the overlooked spot as a WGLC issue.

As a matter of process, I wish I could have been notified in some more active way about the resolution when the ticket was resolved. Since it was resolved several years after I raised the issue, I was no longer monitoring the WG closely enough to notice. Had I been aware of the resolution, I likely would have spotted the error (i.e. that one of four mentions of confirmation was not addressed).

Cheers,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 08:57:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2012 08:57:19 GMT