- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:33:48 +0100 (MET)
- To: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Paul Hoffman: > >>+ Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after >>+ receiving a 301 status code, some existing user agents will >>+ change the method of the request to GET. > >When you say "will change the method of the request to GET", do you mean >"will send the same request again, except change the POST method to a GET >method"? I guess they will also delete the body of the POST request when changing the method to GET, though I have not done experiments to confirm this. What about this note, which better leaves things undefined: + Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after + receiving a 301 status code, some existing user agents will + change it into a GET request. >If so, why on earth would they do that? Historical reasons, I believe. A very old version of the HTTP specification could be interpreted as requiring a change to GET on redirection. > And, more importantly, is it worth >noting if it doesn't make much sense? It does make some limited sense for the 302 code, as is shown by the introduction of the 303 code in the 1.1 draft. But whether or not is makes sense is orthogonal to whether it is worth noting. It is worth noting because most user agents in use now change the POST to a GET. Thus, there is a discrepancy between current practice and the 1.0 informational definition. It is important to warn about such discrepancies in the 1.0 document. >--Paul Hoffman >--Internet Mail Consortium Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 15:13:31 UTC