W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > April 2016

RE: Redirection vs. Content-location (was Re: Filters as views (ISSUE-45))

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:35:35 +0200
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02e701d18f7a$b58eed00$20acc700$@gmx.net>
On 24 Mrz 2016 at 15:15, Maik Riechert wrote:
> Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> But still, I have a feeling that Content-Location is not yet meant to
>>> do the thing that we would like here, and that is to essentially
>>> override the request URI with the Content-Location URI and use that
>>> for processing. Right?
>> 
>> I think it is fine. In doubt we can also send a mail to some of the experts over at IETF.
> 
> I recently came across a cross-origin issue where using Content-Location
> would help. I posted the issue at public-ldp
> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2016Mar/0005.html)
> since it applies to LDP as well and I thought they may be aware of it.
> 
> In essence:
> 
> If redirect-initiated pagination is used and some condition has
> triggered the browser to fire a cross-origin preflight request (e.g.
> cross-domain use of custom headers like "Prefer:") then the URL and
> options validated by the preflight request are not valid for the
> redirected URL and then the browser simply says "sorry, no". This is
> because browsers do not repeatedly make preflight requests for the
> redirect URLs.

Interesting...


> The only nice solution I could think of is to not use redirects and
> instead Content-Location.
> 
> Does all of the above make sense so far? If yes, I'd be keen that we ask
> the IETF experts (who?) whether it's ok to use Content-Location for that
> at this time.

I'd try apps-discuss@ietf.org or ietf-http-wg@w3.org. Please CC public-hydra@w3.org in case you send a mail.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 20:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 April 2016 20:36:10 UTC