- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:51:29 +1300
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
sorry - meant 303 not 307. Adrien de Croy wrote: > > > Isn't this a symptom of the problem with the initial redirect code? > > If the automated client thinks it's being redirected to an alternative > source of the same resource, then it will treat it differently to if > it thinks it is being diverted. A human (hopefully) can tell the > difference. > > Can't we solve this one with the solution to the problems of 301/302 > and GET following POST? > > I.e. introduce a divert code, which specifically means, "you've been > diverted to here", rather than "you can get what you were looking for > here". > > Could use 307 for that? e.g, clarify the intent of 307 to mean a > diversion rather than a detour (i.e. different destination rather than > different path to same destination). > > One more for the pot. > > Adrien > > > Nicholas Shanks wrote: >> On 15 Mar 2007, at 14:53, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> 402 is reserved, and I think the original intent was making a >>> payment to the origin server, not to the folks who give you the >>> network to get there... >> >> I think 402 is the best status code here. There's nothing in RFC2616 >> that says intermediate servers can't request payment too. >> >> - Nicholas. >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:51:55 UTC