- From: Laurent Carcone <carcone@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:52:30 +0100
- To: Hugh Sasse <hgs@dmu.ac.uk>
- CC: Amaya Mailing List <www-amaya@w3.org>
Hello Hugh, Amaya is based on the libwww for HTTP requests and there is indeed a maximum of redirection allowed in the library (I guess to avoid infinite loop). By default this maximum is set to 5 and Amaya set it to 7 at the initialization (so more than the spec suggests). I haven't see any difference between HTTP 1.0 and HTTP 1.1 concerning this aspect in the library. So , there is no way in the current version to dynamically change this maximum. I guess it's the first report on this problem, the mail you pointed out concerns a redirection problem for the PUT method and I think it has been fixed. Regards, Laurent Carcone Hugh Sasse wrote: > I have been attempting to debug a problem (with colours not showing > up) on an internal server. I've tried a number of browsers, > (Firefox, internet explorer and Opera) but when I remembered Amaya > is more rigorous, I tried that. It detected bugs in the HTML, but > also it gave me a message about too many redirects. > > It turns out that HTTP 1.1 mentions this: > > Q> 10.3 Redirection 3xx > Q> [...] > Q> Note: previous versions of this specification recommended a > Q> maximum of five redirections. Content developers should be aware > Q> that there might be clients that implement such a fixed > Q> limitation. > > so therefore it no longer applies in HTTP 1.1, only 1.0. I can't find > any means of turning this error detection off. I agree that it is a > useful warning for 1.0 compliance, but if the client has requested 1.1 > then it should not matter, should it? > > Searching the archives for previous reports of this problem I found this: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-amaya/2006JulSep/0019.html > > which is about 2 and half years old, but doesn't seem to have been > implemented. I had six redirect questions to respond to before this > other error message came up, and that was for one submit button. > > Thank you, > Hugh > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 09:53:10 UTC