- From: Paul Hoffman <paulh@imc.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:01:39 -0800
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>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. This sounds OK to me, if it is done by a fair number of well-intentioned (if not misguided) HTTP/1.0 clients. --Paul Hoffman --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 15:15:06 UTC