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

Hi Kornel,

On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Kornel Lesinski wrote:

>
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 10:24:08 +0100, Robert J Burns  
> <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>
>> On the issue of authoring misuse of 301s, is there some other litmus
>> test we can apply (such as consistent response headers) that could
>> help identify these misused 301s? If not, my inclination would be to
>> simply treat all of the 301s the same along with 0 timeout META
>> redirects (with perhaps the exception of handling some differences  
>> for
>> extended redirect timeouts, as Boris suggested).
>
> Google Maps uses 0 timeout in <noscript> for redirecting to static  
> map version:
> <noscript><meta http-equiv=refresh content="0; URL=http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.800651,-4.064941&spn=11.670476,25.202637&z=6&output=html 
> "/></noscript>
>
> It could be problematic to switch back to JS version if <meta> was  
> threated like 301 (and cached regardless of JS support).


Thanks for that information. I've added the possibility of some new  
syntax for the http-equiv attribute and the corresponding content for  
those pragma keywords[1]. This is just a first stab at it, and we  
might be able to allow authors even more expressiveness for these meta  
element redirects. It might then be possible to allow authors to use  
this new authoring syntax to meet the needs of users while at the same  
time falling back on the old refresh pragma keyword and a timeout for  
legacy UAs.

Take care,
Rob

[1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/RedirectNorm>

Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 13:59:20 UTC