- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:34:52 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > You asked why the header was present, not what the problem is. Same difference. >> Changing <form> to support PUT and DELETE is hard and unlikely to >> happen. > > Hard things have happened before though. Which is why previously in the > thread I pointed out the fact that if someone felt the need to lead this it > was possible. Given the cross-origin complexity it just does not quite seem worth it in order to get this declarative. > Redirects should certainly be fixed so as to ignore the "safe methods" > requirement from HTTP (or HTTP should be fixed to provide better advice). > Note that the issue is not just prompting, but also switching the method > from PUT/DELETE to GET. > > Why just 307 and not 301-3,8? Because only 307/308 preserve the method. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 13:35:21 UTC