- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:48:42 -0800
- To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Message-ID: <CABNRm62rtuLtuzg-t06f+3ThSkfnz_r2u48haPwS1tYcJnkKLA@mail.gmail.com>
I don't think we should be adding a new HTML feature just to work-around the limitation of an old CMS you happen to use. The correct fix is to replace your CMS with a more sensible CMS that correctly overrides HTTP headers. - Ryosuke On Jan 27, 2012 6:10 AM, "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > 27.01.2012, 04:56, "Kornel LesiĆski" <kornel@geekhood.net>: > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:05:04 -0000, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com > > <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > >> Currently, if a page is result of POST request, trying to refresh it in > >> browser do result in browser message confirming that user really wants > >> to refresh page that will result in resending form data that is already > >> sent. If user do not want to resend data, it ends up with complete > >> _impossibility_ to refresh page without manual focusing location bar > and > >> pressing Enter key. > > > > I think this is a quality of implementation issue. > > > > For example Opera does not ask this question at allâ Back button never > > re-sends POST (this is what RFC 2616 §13.13[1] suggests), and Reload > > always re-sends (since this is an explicit instruction from the user > > already, there is no need to ask). > > > > I find this to be quite good behavior. There are no annoying requesters > at > > all, Back button navigation is always smooth, and it works with all pages > > already. > > > > It may be easier to convince other browser vendors to implement history > > and caching according to RFC 2616 §13.13, rather than to define a > > workaround and add it to all pages. > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.13 > > > > -- > > regards, Kornel LesiĆski > > Thanks, Kornel. But the proposal is _not_ about adding something to _all_ > pages (that would be pointless). > > The proposal is about minimizing negative user-experience impact _when_ > server-side redirect would/should be used, but is _technically impossible_. > > The proposed meta element would be used exactly and _only_ on pages that > normally would use (self-)redirect. Resending POST data always (without > user confirmation) is even worse since it would result in sending multiple > copies of same comment or feedback message much more likely than if browser > needs confirmation from user. > > So it's not browser-implementation issue at all, it should be controllable > by web-developer on _per-page basis_ -- same way as server-side redirect is > controlled by web-developer on _per-page basis_, not by browser. > > It's frequent situation when a POST-requested page do look and do function > same way as GET-requested page with same URL, with only one distinction: > refreshing the page resends POST data resulting in undesired adding > multiple copies of comments/messages/etc. So there are just two options in > such situations: > > 1. put up with negative impact caused by inability for user to refresh > page and/or potential resending of POST data when user refreshes the page; > > 2. use the proposed meta element to prevent resending POST data when > server-side (self-)redirect would be used if it was technically available. > >
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 20:49:10 UTC