Re: 301/302

Klaus Weide <> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> As Foteos hinted, swapping the meaning of 302 and 303 is a solution
>> to the implementation problem.  I don't think it would affect Apache much.
>> However, it would require universal agreement among the rest of the
>> implementers, and it would require recycling HTTP/1.1 as Proposed
>> and not as a Draft Standard.  It is not something to be taken lightly.
>I hope the idea of just "swapping" 302 and 303 is not being entertained
>seriously.  303 is a clean thing and doesn't need to be fixed - don't
>dump the problem on those who have tried to do the right thing.[1]
>[1] There probably aren't many who use 303.  But at least the lynx mailing
>    list has directed people with problems to read the HTTP specs (RFC 
>    1945, then the 1.1 draft and later RFC), to read the "Note:"s in the
>    301 and 302 descriptions, and to use 303.

	It's a matter of personal opinion whether passing the buck to
the user via an option to use the 303 behavior for a 302 is a solution
to the problem, or just a "workaround kludge" for an unsolved problem.
I certainly didn't intend for that to be treated as anything more than
one of Fote's workaround kludges.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 1997 12:09:14 UTC