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"Received on Thursday, 28 August 1997 18:38:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC