Re: 301/302

Uhh..
My impression at munich was that we agreed to swap the meanings of
301/302 in the 1.1 spec.

Can someone check the minutes?
(jim??)

David W. Morris wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>		      Netscape Communications Corp.
http://people.netscape.com/josh/
                                "You can land on the sun, but only at night"