- From: <Adrian.Colley@sse.ie>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 21:15:02 +0000
- To: http-wg (will serve files for coffee) <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
In message <199503231940.OAA13985@networkxxiii.openmarket.com> of Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:40:38 -0500, you wrote: > What appears to happen when a POST is redirected is the client attempts a > GET at the new URL so that the user can fill-in the form again (it may have > changed when it moved) That sounds broken, IMHO. The source of the form has nothing to do with the Action method of it. For example, I frequently use a small form which I took from http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/archieplexform.html, trimmed, and embedded in my home page. When I submit the form, it posts it to src.doc.ic.ac.uk via http. If the redirect meant I had to fill in the form again, I wouldn't be happy at all. Or maybe this is a psychological tactic, to encourage users to update permanently moved links... For temporary redirects, it's definitely wrong (for example, the redirect may depend on the form data). -- Adrian.Colley@sse.ie <g=Adrian;s=Colley;o=SSE;p=SSE;a=EIRMAIL400;c=ie> phones:- work: +353-1-6769089; fax: +353-1-6767984; home: +353-1-6606239 employer: Software and Systems Engineering (+=disclaimer) (Perth)->o~^\ Y!AWGMTPOAFWY? 4 lines, ok? qebas perl unix-haters kill microsoft \@##/
Received on Thursday, 23 March 1995 13:19:05 UTC