Re: [XHR] Redirects

On 02.09.2010 00:00, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
> <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>     On 01.09.2010 10:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>         ...
>
>             I thought of another reason to want the original XHR object
>             to be
>             responsible for following the redirect: the value of a
>             Location header
>             may be a relative URL. It would be nice if application
>             authors did not
>             have to take care of resolving that manually. (In the case of a
>             cross-origin
>             request, the relative URL should be resolved relative to the
>             URL that was
>             redirected instead of against the Document.) This seems like
>             something
>             that could be easy to mess up.
>
>
>         Yeah, I thought of that. There's location.resolveURL(), but it
>         does not
>         take a base URL at the moment. We could add that. Though note that
>         relative URLs are forbidden in theory.
>         ...
>
>
>     They are in RFC 2616, but not in HTTPbis
>     (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-11.html#rfc.section.9.4>).
>
>     Best regards, Julian
>
>
> What does it mean for them to not be part of HTTPbis?  Relative URLs in
> Location headers are not uncommon.


Clarifying: they are *forbidden* in RFC 2616 (*), but not in HTTPbis
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics11.html#rfc.section.9.4>), 
so HTTPbis *allows* them now.

BR, Julian

(*) the ABNF doesn't allow them.

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:24:59 UTC