W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

warning: redirect test cases broken, was: Request for feedback on HTTP Location header syntax + semantics, ?Re: Issues 43 and 185, was: Issue 43 (combining fragments)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:20:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4B97D4CE.3040802@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 10.03.2010 17:15, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> ...
> Leaving things undefined seems like a very bad idea. If it really
> doesn't matter today what UAs do, then my experience is that sometime
> in the future sites will start depending on it one way or another.
> That said. I don't see that firefox treats relative and absolute URIs
> any differently. The code at [1], which handles redirects, seems to
> forward the fragment ID from the original uri if the new uri doesn't
> have a fragment, and otherwise use the fragment ID of the new
> location. No distinction is made based on if the location header
> contained a relative or absolute URI.
> Do you have a testcase where we can test the behavior?
> ...

I thought I did (mentioned in my previous mail); but I just decided to 
double-check them, given your confidence (the tests were written in a 
hurry during a conference).

Turns out they relied on Apache/mod_asis to treat Location headers as 
opaque data, which apparently is not the case. So the test cases at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/redirects.html> work only for those 
four tests where the redirect target is a full URI. In the other cases, 
mod_asis apparently resolves the path internally, and never sends the 

Summary: please ignore this for now; I will have to produce test cases 
that actually test what I wanted to test.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 17:21:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:21 UTC