Re: 301/302

John Franks wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> > Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > >   If a server gets a request labeled HTTP/1.1, it should
> > >   treat it as one and respond with 1.1; the complexity of looking at
> > >   User-Agent values and making some decision based on them is too much
> > >   to contemplate (especially since many browsers lie in thier
> > >   User-Agent headers).
> >
> > Practical experience has shown us (the Apache Group) that it is not
> > possible to deploy a fully compliant HTTP/1.1 server without making
> > allowance for broken browsers.
> >
> 
> Yes, but this is not an issue of broken browsers.  It is a question of
> *all* correctly implemented browsers, and which versions of them
> support which version(s) of HTTP.
> 
> I have the greatest respect for the Apache project.  What you have
> achieved is truly remarkable and I am a big fan.  But if your 1.1
> servers use 303 and 307 then as soon as 1.1 proxies appear there will
> be a lot of broken transactions.  I see no way around this except
> never to use 303/307 and revert to 302.  Perhaps I am wrong.  I hope
> so.

I'm afraid I haven't been following the 303/307/302 debate closely
(that's Roy's job). I was merely making an observation about the
necessity and practicality of paying attention to User-Agent.

Rest assured that if the proposed solution doesn't work, it won't be
deployed in Apache - we're not in the business of breaking 40%+ of the
Web.

Cheers,

Ben.

BTW, can anyone explain why the title of this thread is 301/302?

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Received on Friday, 5 September 1997 12:55:08 UTC