W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: 301/302

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lou Montulli <montulli@netscape.com>
Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970828181222.1422B-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4229

On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Lou Montulli wrote:

> > The 307 proposal works. Lets do it.
> >
> I'm definately coming late to this discussion, but I have some strong
> thoughtsto offer.
> 99.2% of the browsers in use today including all versions of netscape and IE
> reissue POST redirects with a GET.  It would be incredibly fool hardy to
> try and change this behaviour now.  It is far easier to swap the meaning of
> 303 and 301/302 than it is to fix every CGI in the world as well as every old
> browser in the world.   I doubt that any commercial vendor is willing to
> release a product that will break a large number of sites simply to claim
> compliance with this spec.
> How is this issue going to get resolved?  This tread died out almost a month
> ago yet there is no solution yet.  The current situation is unworkable.

I thought we had reached concensus that 302 would be redefined to current
practice that 301 and 303 were correctly defined AND that a new
code (307) would mean what 302 currently says.

But I don't recall anyone declaring concensus or providing actual proposed
wording changes.

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 18:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC