- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:22:32 +0100
- To: "HTTP WG" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:14:24 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > When we design APIs (XMLHttpRequest) and protocols (CORS) that support > transparent redirects (redirects automatically followed by the API) what > exactly should count as a redirect as far as they are concerned? > Everything in the 3xx range that contains a Location header? > > E.g. for some part of CORS > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/cors/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#actual-request we > explicitly fail if the response code is 301, 302, 303, or 307, because > we want the ability to support transparent redirects going forward. > Should we also fail if the response code is 310? > > Should > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#same-origin-request-event-rules > follow redirects for status codes other than 301, 302, 303, and 307? > Should it instead treat anything else as a network error so we can more > easily extend it in the future? If we do not treat it as a network error > the developer would just get back a response with a status code of 310 > and the Location header and going forward we could never treat it as any > of the "blessed redirects" anymore. It seems this question is related to http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/325 > Aside: What happened to > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JulSep/0014.html ? > I could not find the issue. I could not find this issue in your database or in the mailing list archives since mnot said he would raise it. It was more or less by chance that I happened to look at it again because I vaguely recalled having raised a redirect issue earlier. I guess I did not use "NEW ISSUE" but then I did not know whether it was an issue when I started the thread. Can someone please fix this now? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 11:23:05 UTC