Re: User confirmation and 307 redirects [#238]

Thanks for reminding us of this, Adam. When you brought it up in Maastricht, we created:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/238

Cheers,


On 19/08/2010, at 7:27 AM, Adam Barth wrote:

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11#section-8.3.8 says
> 
> [[
>   If the 307 status code is received in response to a request method
>   that is known to be "safe", as defined in Section 7.1.1, then the
>   request MAY be automatically redirected by the user agent without
>   confirmation.  Otherwise, the user agent MUST NOT automatically
>   redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since
>   this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.
> ]]
> 
> As has been pointed out by multiple folks on multiple occasions, this
> requirement should be removed for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) HTTP ought not to impose constraints on the user agent's user
> interface.  This requirement is not appropriate for all user agents,
> for example a GPS navigation unit in a car.
> 2) This requirement does not reflect reality.  A number of widely used
> user agents disregard this requirement.
> 3) This requirement is actively harmful to interoperability.  Web
> sites cannot reliably use 307 redirects because it triggers awful UI
> mandated by this requirement in some user agents.
> 
> The only counter rationale I've seen on this list is that the
> requirement is actually meaningless under a theory of
> "pre-confirmation."  If the requirement is meaningless, that means we
> should remove it as well.
> 
> Kindly remove the requirement.
> 
> Adam
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 20 August 2010 01:15:43 UTC