W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [XHR] Redirects

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:31:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4C921C3F.6010000@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 16.09.2010 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:50:41 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> If using followRedirect() is easy, but manually following it is hard,
>> people might choose the wrong approach just because it's easier.
> Well, what is wrong and what is right is still an open issue in the HTTP
> WG.

Yes, that's <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>.

I note that there are servers out there that expect method name 
preservation upon 301/302 (such as Apache/moddav), and that there are 
clients out there that do this.

I don't believe that we're going to make these cases non-compliant; 
maximally, we could state the special situation for POST (and just that, 
not all methods).

>> I think that obtaining the resolved Location for the redirect is the
>> most tricky part, and we should come up with a solution where that is
>> also available for people who do not want the default browser behavior.
> I don't really like special casing the Location header here. It seems we
> are ending up with two additional members for dealing with redirects. I
> do not want another one. There are other headers where resolving a URL
> might be needed. Adding a parameter to navigator.resolveURL() for a base
> URL is the way to go I think.

That sounds good to me. In general I think it would be great if there 
were standard APIs for URI/IRI construction, parsing and resolution...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 13:32:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:11 UTC