- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:33:04 +0100
- To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:09:10 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote: > RFC2616 added the 303 and 307 status codes trying to solve the problem > by defining new status codes replacing the earlier. But it did not > change 302 to reflect what the majority of the implementations actualy > do other than adding a note that many implementations is broken and uses > GET instead, and neither did it mark 301/302 as unusable.. And with most > implementers (all sides) still following the majority instead of > specifications.. Following the spec for this is not really feasible. We tried and failed. It would make sense to simply change the specification imo... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:33:15 UTC