Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02

* Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 2012-01-14 16:48, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> - what's the problem with the title?
>>
>> When the redirect target disappears but the redirect does not, then you
>> might end up with "Permanent Redirect" as title in search results which
>> looks very broken and is uninformative. A better title would be "Moved
>> to<new location>".
>
>3xx responses never should show up in search results. Or am I missing 
>something?

When all of http://schnitzelmitkartoffelsalat.example/ redirects to some
address the search engine cannot connect to, and someone searches for,
say, "schnitzelmitkartoffelsalat.example", the search engine might still
list the site in the results, and might link the proper address instead
of the redirect target which it cannot resolve (reasons include that the
user might be able to connect to sites the search engine can't connect
to).

>>> - why do I need to specify encoding? It's all US-ASCII
>>
>> Because RFC 2854 says it's strongly recommended to use the parameter.
>
>Well, it's a silly recommendation in this case. And it's NOT UPPERCASE!

If you really want to argue that the example is better when it does not
declare the character encoding without very clearly indicating that the
declaration has been elided because it's "all US-ASCII" ... Do you still
keep Internet Explorer 6 around? It should be possible to make an ex-
ample that does not redirect to where you think it would, but I would
have to set up a virtual machine for testing and there kinda would be no
point if you don't have the right browser to try it.
-- 
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 16:52:02 UTC