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

Re: 301/302

From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:28:55 -0500 (CDT)
To: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970903202951.29138D-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4306
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Josh Cohen wrote:

> To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
> >      The "307" proposal will allow CGI scripts to work with at
> > least 99% probability of success with both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1
> > browsers.  Think about it some more.  Try it, you'll like it!!! :) :)
> So, am I correct in saying that the new CGI must check the version
> of the *REQUEST* before deciding which code to send back ?

Assuming we are talking about CGI scripts doing POST redirection with
current de-facto 302 behavior:
(1) Old scripts don't have to be rewritten (assuming that nothing else get
    broken when they are transplanted into a HTTP/1.1 server environment.)
    They can continue to use 302 (although it should be a simple change to
    make them 2b instead).

(2) New scripts (your scenario) can
 (a) act like old scripts, or
 (b) check SERVER_PROTOCOL and use 303 or 302, depending, or
 (c) use 303 to a HTTP/1.0 client if there's some out-of-band knowledge,
    recognized user-agent, etc., or
 (d) always use 303 even to all HTTP/1.0 clients.

(a) is for the lazy and the ignorant,
(b) is for those who want the best combination of unambiguousness [is that
    a word?] and interoperability,
(c) is for the insiders,
(d) is for the adventurous and those who don't care.

So I think it's not absolutely necessary that a CGI script check the
client's version, but that it is a good idea.

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 1997 19:31:48 UTC

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