Re: Test http-request-012: p:http-request and 302 HTTP redirect

Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> writes:

>> In short, we're content with 7.1.10.3.1 as it stands in the current
>> editor's draft.
>
>   I don't like this section for two reasons: 1/ I'd prefer SHOULD than
> MUST, as I can imagine implementors could have good reason not to do
> so, and 2/ it does not make any difference regarding the method, while
> the HTTP RFC allows an implementation to follow redirect only for GET
> and HEAD (technically, an implementation couldn't be both HTTP and
> XProc conformant.)

Oh, you're absolutely right about the methods. That came
up...somewhere, but I seem to have dropped it. I will work on getting
that fixed.

And I guess I could live with SHOULD, like cookies. 

>> On a personal note, can you explain how the Google use of redirects
>> for authentication requires a pipeline to *not* follow the redirect in
>> order to access the API? I would have thought that was a case were
>> following the redirect (perhaps with cookies preserved) was
>> *necessary*.
>
>   Really, I'd like to give you an answer, but I do not have anyone :-/
>  Two months is a long time ;-)  If I remember well, I got an
> implementation that followed a 302 on a POST request, and followed the
> redirection as a GET (while the authentication info were in the body.)
>  This is not conformant to the HTTP RFC, and I can't find doc about
> that in GData authentication.  So maybe my memories are playing with
> me...

Ok. I'll spend some more time with it. That could just be an XML
Calabash bug :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To the man who is afraid everything
http://nwalsh.com/            | rustles.-- Sophocles