- From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:16:27 -0800
- To: "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus@daboo.name>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <yngve@opera.com>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cyrus Daboo wrote: > --On December 23, 2008 2:24:21 PM +0100 Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > >> The 301 and 302 sections of HTTPbis seems to make the implicit, or > >> perhaps not clearly stated, assumption that the new request shall > >> use the same method as the request triggering the response. > > > > Just for the record: this text hasn't been changes since RFC2616... > > The current "Note" for 301 is: > > Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after > receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents > will erroneously change it into a GET request. > > The reality is that it is not just HTTP/1.0 user agents that do this > now but also HTTP/1.1. I think we need to reflect this reality more > clearly (e.g., just remove the text "HTTP/1.0"). > > BTW this behavior is encouraged not only by user agents but also HTTP > client libraries that do it. e.g. check out the note in the Python > documentation: > <http://www.python.org/doc/2.5/lib/http-redirect-handler.html>. A.J. Flavell wrote what may be the most comprehensive article on this, which is unfortunately only available in the wayback machine now: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/pos t-redirect.html Robert Brewer fumanchu@aminus.org
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 18:14:04 UTC