Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:

> <>
> So now that we have allowed UAs to rewrite a 301 POST to GET (see 
> <>), the spec doesn't 
> have a permanent redirect that always preserves the method.
> (We *do* have the equivalent for temporary redirects: 307).
> So...:
> 1) Is this a problem?

First thing is... was 301 ever used to change entries in a bookmark or a 
link in a page? If not, then it's not a problem worth adding a new status 
code. A 307 with a long enough cache time should be enough to redirect 
If it is, then 2a would be the best option (in another doc)

> 2) If yes, how can we fix it?
> 2a) Define a new code (in a separate spec)?
> 2b) Explain that a 307 can be made permanent by adding Cache-Control magic.
> My 17 cents:
> 2a) This might be hard to deploy, but maybe that's not a problem for those 
> applications that want to use it. If we do that, it needs a separate spec (or 
> it could go into Mark's new-status-codes thingy).
> 2b) This probably could be smuggled into HTTPbis, but in this case I'd 
> *really* like to see us adding a concrete example.
> Best regards, Julian

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.


Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 15:35:32 UTC