- From: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:52:10 -0700
- To: James Leigh <james-nospam@leighnet.ca>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 16:52:42 UTC
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Leigh <james-nospam@leighnet.ca>wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 01:03 -0700, Darin Fisher 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. > > > > > > -Darin > > > I want to point out that resolving the Location header is not specific > to 3XX responses. A 201 (Created) response also includes a Location > header that may need to be resolved. If the problem of providing a way > to resolve redirect is addressed it might be good to also address the > problem of resolving 201 locations as well. > > One suggestion might be to provide a getResponseLocation() that returns > the resolved Location header. > > James > > That's a good point. Note, resolving the Location header is only one of the issues. Another is knowing what HTTP method to use in response to a redirect. -Darin
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 16:52:42 UTC