- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:52:39 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> Any other thoughts on this? It's a fairly substantial change. David B
> suggested a few re-wordings, but I don't see agreement around those yet.
>
> Personally -- there are a few editorial changes that I'd make, as the
> proposal is a bit wordy;
> - "in order to obtain a representation corresponding to the response,
> be redirected again, or end with an error status" is superfluous, as is
> "generally" and "by Cache-Control or Expires header fields."
> - "...transferred by the server over HTTP" seems clunky, as does
> "follow-on", although I don't have any immediate suggestion for either.
+0 -- that is, it is wordy, but I don't think this is a problem.
> Also, we seem to be implicitly dropping the note to implementers WRT
> HTTP/1.0 support for 303. Are we confident that this is no longer a
> problem?
I would lean to "no, it's no problem", unless somebody can point to a
client that still is in significant use and has that problem. Let's try
to get rid of *some* of the historical stuff :-).
> Finally, 2616 makes it a SHOULD-level requirement that the Location URI
> is a different URI. Are we dropping that explicitly? One easy fix would
> be to change "The Location URI indicates a resource..." to "The Location
> URI SHOULD indicate a different resource..."
The requirement is still there ("The server directs the user agent to a
different resource, indicated by a URI in the Location header
field..."), it just doesn't use RFC2119 terminology to say that. I
personally have no problem with that.
> Otherwise, it looks good to me. I've copied the original spec text below
> for comparison.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 14:53:20 UTC