Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>On 26/01/2012, at 1:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> 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"?

No, I just don't want any such requirement or suggestion to apply when
it is fairly clear that there is no user agent on the other end.
-- 
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 Thursday, 26 January 2012 02:35:22 UTC