RE: UA norm for redirects (both META and http)

Julian -

I really am not (personally) looking for anything from HTTP. Others brought the subject up and proposed a solution in HTML for issues (or perceived issues) at the HTTP level. After all, it is HTTP that is responsible for requesting redirects. Other than the guesses I have already put forth, your best source for information on the "HTTP issues" would be the people who wanted this proposal in HTML in the first place.

Hope that clear up the confusion!

J.Ja

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:28 AM
To: Justin James
Cc: 'Thomas Broyer'; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: UA norm for redirects (both META and http)

Justin James wrote:
> The issues that the original request attempts to address, in terms of how browsers handle the redirect. Basically, my suspicion is that application developers don't realize that multiple HTTP status codes can produce a redirect, and they may have a redirect reason or two that the existing status codes don't cover. What I see is that developers tend to use 302 (Moved) which is rarely the correct status code for what they are trying to accomplish. So between developers frequently operating in a state of ignorance, and the HTTP spec not fully meeting their needs (although experience shows that few would use the needed feature if they were added anyways), we have a scenario where the browser's behavior is often not ideal.

That may all be true, but I'm not sure how this is HTTP's problem.

HTTP basically distinguishes "moved temporarily" and "moved 
permanently". Are you looking for more detail? What? And what would a UA 
do with it?

BR, Julian

Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 05:00:32 UTC