Re: Redirection of a POST as a GET

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Adrien de Croy schrieb:
>> ...
>> Of course if there are significant implementations out there that do 
>> rely on the written specified behaviour, then it's a different 
>> picture, but are there any, or is this just a purely hypothetical 
>> situation?
> > ...
>
> Be careful.
>
> HTTP is not only about browsers:
>
understood... HTTP is used for many things not browser-related... (my
personal favourite is UPnP - HTTP over UDP multicast...urgh!).  Hence my
comment about implementations.

so I agree with you - not many options but a cleanup of the codes.  If
they have already been in the spec for years, hopefully they are
implemented (albeit dormant) in deployed software?  Can but test I guess.

Adrien


> 1) WebDAV servers are known to use 302 on methods such as PROPFIND 
> (for instance, Apache/moddav for PROPFIND on a collection URL with 
> trailing slash missing), and expect clients to proceed with PROPFIND, 
> not GET.
>
> 2) I'm pretty sure that APP clients are expected noz to follow a 302 
> upon POST with GET.
>
> The confusion seems to be caused by 302 being used for two separate 
> things (moving a resource, and pointing to a retrievable result of a 
> POST). Both deserve separate status codes, and have got them as 303 
> and 307 since January 1997 (307) or even longer (303).
>
> It seems to me that the right thing to do here is to clearly deprecate 
> 302 (describing both what it was supposed to do, and what it does in 
> practice), and lobbying for proper use of 303 and 307 instead.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:40:27 UTC