#332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

On 2012-01-14 16:50, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * 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.

Indeed; I forgot that I was cross-posting :-)

I have raised this point as 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/332>.

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 17:58:10 UTC