- From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:08:32 -0800 (PST)
- To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPW_8m4POQAYio6+VzFXbP-jb+huFqC0nA+E7CEAte8Yezne3g@mail.gmail.com>
thanks. i'll update the link on my web page. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:38, Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>wrote: > I've updated the browser tests for default handling of new status codes > and some updated behaviour added to chrome since i last performed the > tests. the results are split into two tables based on if a content payload > is provided in the response. i've also condensed the tables so that only > deviations from the default handling are recorded. > > http://www.cmhjones.com/browser-http-test-matrix.html > > thanks, > cameron > > On 02/12/2011, at 1:57 PM, mike amundsen wrote: > > Cameron: > > once you complete the changes, send me a link and i'll replace that local > file i am using now to your link. that way any future changes will be > automatically reflected from my page. > > mca > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com@mamund > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me > > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 08:53, Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On 01/12/2011, at 9:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> > Ah, OK, missed that. Thanks. Still would be nice to have more details. >> >> i performed the tests manually using a html form which captured a status >> code to return and whether to include a payload or not. this was sent to a >> simple web server with POST and the server setup to create a response with >> the relevant status and content. the behaviour was observed and recored in >> the browser and using available debug tools. >> >> i used http POST to try and gather the behaviour which may be seen with >> the addition of new methods, testing over GET seemed a bit irrespective as >> it's only the browser's handling of retrieving a URL. >> >> the 3xx results are the most interesting as this is the area where there >> is the most room for interpretation on what an agent should do for the user. >> >> i'm updating it with as new status code tests and will split the table >> out, let me know if i can provide any more details. >> >> thanks, >> cam >> >> > >> > On 02/12/2011, at 7:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> > >> >> On 2011-12-01 21:55, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> Was he testing how browsers handled the indicated code in response to >> a GET here? >> >>> >> >>> If so, what do the 3xx results he shows mean? Without the >> methodology, this raises more questions than it answers. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >> >> >> It's all from a HTML form POST, AFAIU. >> >> >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > >> > -- >> > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:09:13 UTC