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

On Friday, February 12, 2016 11:15 AM, Maik Riechert wrote:
> Am 12.02.2016 um 09:28 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin:
>> (I propose to change the thread subject, as this interesting topic
>> (is sidetracking from the original one)

Yep, good idea

[...]
> This specific browser problem is solved by RFC7231 (which Ruben linked
> to) which obsoletes RFC2616:
> 
> " The definition of Content-Location has been changed to no longer
>    affect the base URI for resolving relative URI references, due to
>    poor implementation support and the undesirable effect of potentially
>    breaking relative links in content-negotiated resources.
>    (Section 3.1.4.2)"

Wow, thanks for digging this out. I haven't realized that before.


> 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.

 
>> Personally, I think this is an elegant alternative to redirection,
>> although I don't think that Hydra should mandate one or the other.

Agreed. We should mention both options and leave implementers decide on what they want to use. We do need a mechanism to signal this to the client.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 22 February 2016 21:07:40 UTC