- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:50:20 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Julian Reschke wrote: >> The fallback requirement >> >> Unless the request method was HEAD, the representation of the response >> SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new >> URI(s), since most user agents do not understand the 308 status code >> yet. Therefore, the note SHOULD contain the information necessary for >> a user to repeat the original request on the new URI. >> >> strikes me as a bad idea. It's a transient problem so it should be con- >> ditioned and how widely supported this is, and it's only useful if you >> have some HTML implementation on the other end or an interactive user; a >> web service not meant for interactive use where you can be sure that the >> code is supported, because, say, you control the client, is unaffected, >> and if you add that as another exception you basically end up saying you >> can do this so your site works better with legacy clients in some situ- >> ations and making your site work good is probably a good idea, so I'd >> prefer just saying that. I don't really want to ponder whether I should >> send this hypertext response in response to an OPTIONS request in 2015, >> just because your specification says I should. > >Again, this is consistent with RFC 2616 and HTTPbis (for now). > >We may want to tune the text in HTTPbis (please follow up over there), >in which case I'll apply the same changes to the spec for 308. Here we are. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2012 15:51:05 UTC