- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:26:58 +1100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26/01/2012, at 1:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the >> response. 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). >> >> Björn says this is too strong; maybe demote to "ought to"? (The same >> applies to 302 and 307). > > I think this should say something along the lines of "if the response > body is rendered by an interactive user agent then the response body > could be a hypertext document containing a link so users of old clients > that do not support the status code as specified can easily follow the > redirect". I think the "unless HEAD" is too broad since it would apply > to cases where the hypertext document would be of no use (like for an > OPTIONS response) and this is not required for interoperation among im- > plementations and does not deal with "harm", so the use of RFC 2119 > "SHOULD" is wrong. Are you suggesting that the server try to figure out whether the client is an "interactive user agent"? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 02:27:25 UTC