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

Re: User confirmation and 307 redirects

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:03:39 +0200
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Adam Barth" <ietf@adambarth.com>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vhx6sda964w2qv@g239.guest-int.opera.com>
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:18:57 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> FYI: I re-ran the test and sent an HTTP trace offlist.
> Anne: regarding XHR -- a silent rewrite of the method is invisible to  
> the caller and thus a bug. On the other hand, silently following the  
> redirect for an unsafe method is still a problem, no matter how we  
> phrase it in httpbis. The safest approach for XHR would be to allow  
> implementations not to follow the redirect, and let the caller handle it  
> instead.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.1.1 does not really make a  
requirement on UI of user agents. Why is it so much stronger for  
redirects? It makes no sense. Especially if we at some point give script  
authors control over handling redirects so they can implement following  
redirects themselves.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 15:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 1 February 2023 02:17:43 UTC