W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2008

RE: UA norm for redirects (both META and http)

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 12:24:35 -0400
To: "'Robert J Burns'" <rob@robburns.com>, "'Kornel Lesinski'" <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <019e01c8c403$fb40c0d0$f1c24270$@com>

I also highly object to this language on the wiki:

"whether provided through HTTP's 301 status code"

Why are we concerned with the UA when it comes to a network protocol level
event? This fragment (and any others like it) need to be stricken from the
HTML spec. We are the HTML 5 group, NOT the HTTP group, not a "standard Web
browser behavior" group. Determining UA behavior in this case is far outside
of our scope & jurisdiction, as much as many of us here (including myself,
on many occasions) know that it would be helpful for this behavior to be
standardized & adjusted.

J.Ja

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Robert J Burns
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Kornel Lesinski
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: UA norm for redirects (both META and http)


Hi Kornel,

On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Kornel Lesinski wrote:

>
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:24:08 +0100, Robert J Burns  
> <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>
>> On the issue of authoring misuse of 301s, is there some other litmus
>> test we can apply (such as consistent response headers) that could
>> help identify these misused 301s? If not, my inclination would be to
>> simply treat all of the 301s the same along with 0 timeout META
>> redirects (with perhaps the exception of handling some differences  
>> for
>> extended redirect timeouts, as Boris suggested).
>
> Google Maps uses 0 timeout in <noscript> for redirecting to static  
> map version:
> <noscript><meta http-equiv=refresh content="0;
URL=http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.800651,-4.064941&spn=11.670476,2
5.202637&z=6&output=html 
> "/></noscript>
>
> It could be problematic to switch back to JS version if <meta> was  
> threated like 301 (and cached regardless of JS support).


Thanks for that information. I've added the possibility of some new  
syntax for the http-equiv attribute and the corresponding content for  
those pragma keywords[1]. This is just a first stab at it, and we  
might be able to allow authors even more expressiveness for these meta  
element redirects. It might then be possible to allow authors to use  
this new authoring syntax to meet the needs of users while at the same  
time falling back on the old refresh pragma keyword and a timeout for  
legacy UAs.

Take care,
Rob

[1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/RedirectNorm>
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 16:25:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:18 GMT