- From: Maik Riechert <m.riechert@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:15:28 +0000
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > But still, I have a feeling that Content-Location is not yet meant to > > do the thing that we would like here, and that is to essentially > > override the request URI with the Content-Location URI and use that > > for processing. Right? > > I think it is fine. In doubt we can also send a mail to some of the experts over at IETF. I recently came across a cross-origin issue where using Content-Location would help. I posted the issue at public-ldp (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2016Mar/0005.html) since it applies to LDP as well and I thought they may be aware of it. In essence: If redirect-initiated pagination is used and some condition has triggered the browser to fire a cross-origin preflight request (e.g. cross-domain use of custom headers like "Prefer:") then the URL and options validated by the preflight request are not valid for the redirected URL and then the browser simply says "sorry, no". This is because browsers do not repeatedly make preflight requests for the redirect URLs. The only nice solution I could think of is to not use redirects and instead Content-Location. Does all of the above make sense so far? If yes, I'd be keen that we ask the IETF experts (who?) whether it's ok to use Content-Location for that at this time. Cheers Maik
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 14:15:46 UTC