W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [XHR] Redirects

From: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:00:03 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimtqYgnYs9jjsUhFND4GF6PURf7mXKZJbkdBD8U@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 01.09.2010 10:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>  I thought of another reason to want the original XHR object to be
>>> responsible for following the redirect: the value of a Location header
>>> may be a relative URL. It would be nice if application authors did not
>>> have to take care of resolving that manually. (In the case of a
>>> cross-origin
>>> request, the relative URL should be resolved relative to the URL that was
>>> redirected instead of against the Document.) This seems like something
>>> that could be easy to mess up.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I thought of that. There's location.resolveURL(), but it does not
>> take a base URL at the moment. We could add that. Though note that
>> relative URLs are forbidden in theory.
>> ...
>>
>
> They are in RFC 2616, but not in HTTPbis (<
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11.html#rfc.section.9.4
> >).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

What does it mean for them to not be part of HTTPbis?  Relative URLs in
Location headers are not uncommon.

-Darin
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:00:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT