- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:01:00 +0200
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-04 15:44, cowwoc wrote: > On 04/07/2013 5:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-07-03 21:16, cowwoc wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Now that status code 303 and others no longer imply GET, we need to >> > ... >> >> How so? >> >> 303 always implied GET. 301, 302, and 307 never implied GET. >> >> The only change we made is to allow 301 and 302 to rewrite POST to GET >> (because that's what UAs do). >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > > I think you misunderstood what I meant. In HTTP 2.0, the following > sentence was added to the description of HTTP 303: "This status code is > applicable to any HTTP method." You are referring to the revision of HTTP/1.1, not HTTP/2.0, right? > Meaning, although it was originally meant to be returned in > response to HTTP POST, it is now legal to return from HTTP > GET/PUT/DELETE as well. At least, that is my interpretation. It was always legal to return it for something different than POST. The change that we made was in order to clarify that "This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource." (RFC 2616) does not imply that it's for POST only. See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0048.html> for context. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 14:01:30 UTC