W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:57:11 -0700
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010930195705.C1343@mnot.net>

On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:44:30PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > Regarding redirection, we're in somewhat of an interesting situation.
> > I *think* the WG's intent is to support automagic redirection.
> > However, there is langugage to this effect in the definitions of 301,
> > 302 and 307;
> > 
> >   If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other
> >   than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect
> >   the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this
> >   might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
> >   
> > In other words, because we use POST, client applications cannot be
> > HTTP compliant and automatically redirect SOAP requests (unless you
> > take great license with 'confirmed by the user').
> 
> Henrik and I discussed this exact issue a while ago off-line.
> IIRC, he suggested that the MUST NOT was likely too strong.
> I admitted to being surprised by it too.

No matter what we decide to do about redirection, I think the HTTP
binding needs to say something about the use of 3xx redirection;
while we can re-interpret 2616 to suit ourselves, implementors need
some guidance.

Cheers,



-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 22:57:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT