W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: commments on techniques doc.

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:53:28 +0100
Message-Id: <199903231453.PAA24097@www47.inria.fr>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

> > Second, the term "server side redirect" is incorrect and misleading. Both
> > in "META refresh" and in HTTP status code 301 the server provides to the
> > user agent information about the new location and
> > the user agent is making a new request.
> > 
> > The differences are:
> > 1. Using HTTP headers vs. markup in the "entity body".
> >   Using HTTP headers is prefrreable because:
> >   it reduced internet traffic, and download time, it may by
> >   applied to non-HTML documents, it may be used by agents who
> >   requested only a HEAD request (e.g. link checkers)
> > 
> > 2. giving information on the nature of the redirect.
> >  Returning status codes of the 30x type provide
> >  information such as moved permanently or temporarily etc.
> >  that cannot be given with META refresh.
> > 
> > Thus, I propose to recommend to use the appropriate HTTP status code
> > rather than recommending the usage of "server side redirects".
> 
> I'll incorporate your proposal.

There is such thing as a "server side redirects", where the HTTP
server automatically returns the new thing in the same round-trip,
with an attached Content-Location header indicating the correct URI,
but I guess this is not what most people use (only in HTTP 1.1) and
this is getting really technical too even for the technique doc.

I'm happy if we extend the proposed wording to "use the appropriate
HTTP status code and headers".
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 09:53:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT