- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 15:06:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: kweide@tezcat.com
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com> 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. Fote ========================================================================= 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