W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects

From: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:21:27 +0000
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EEED0C47-7E0A-4C67-8A72-E7EBB582B442@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 14/12/2011, at 4:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-14 17:02, Cameron Heavon-Jones wrote:
>> Hi Mark et al,
>> On 14/12/2011, at 4:47 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Do we have agreement that a 3xx + Location can / should trigger an automatic redirect (taking into account user notification -- a separate issue)?
>> If i may provide some observations wrt browser clients and the tests performed to determine the current state of interpretation of http spec and resulting implementation of response handling.
>> The most interesting aspect for me was the difference between content vs no-content responses. This is the area of greatest complementary implementation behaviour across vendors, and for good reason.
>> The behaviour of a client in response to redirection codes should not be specified in http as this is dependant on the type of client and its role and responsibly for the end user.
>> In the case of a browser, the end user is the decision maker and overarching authority over the request and response. for this reason, i believe current behaviour exhibited by *all* implementations is the natural, and correct, behaviour - if content is supplied in response body, terminate any further processing and render the content for the end user to make a decision.
> Wait a minute.
> I thought UAs follow 301/302/307 even when sent with content?

No, check the first table - almost all tests result in rendered content apart from 304 and IE throwing some errors.

> Also, XHR follows all of these automatically (and no, it should not).
>> ...
> Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:29:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC