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

Re: 301/302

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 13:32:34 -0400
Message-Id: <199709031732.NAA15070@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4285

>>>>> "LM" == Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> writes:

LM> Yes, some people prefer the proposal expanded in the message
LM>    http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q3/0402.html

LM> We know there is some argument for cleanliness, for those who
LM> went ahead and implemented 303 as it was originally described.
LM> But it was felt "the cat's not really out of the bag". So if
LM> it isn't, can we just go ahead and do the swap?

  I strongly agree with the 307 proposal cited above.  It is most
  unfair to those who have made the effort to read and understand the
  specifications to change them now by swapping the codes, even if
  there is time for them to recover (which we cannot know in any

  Deprecate but allow 302; leave ambiguous.
  Add 307 for 'Redirect Request'; emphasize that method does not
    change and that this response implies not state change on the
  Leave 303 as 'See Other'.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 10:36:50 UTC

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