Re: Problems with code "302 Moved Temporarily"

Larry Masinter:
>Richard Johnson <> wrote:
>> I talked with Netscape about this problem and while they admit that their
>> handling of a code "302" is not as it should be, they also pointed out that
>> since the RFC uses the words, "... the client SHOULD continue to use the
>> Request-URI for future requests", Netscape has no motivation to change
>> their incorrect behavior.  I am sure the same analysis could easily be made
>> of all other browsers and thus it seems as if the code "302" will mostly
>> likely not reach its intended level of use simply because browser designers
>> are clearly allowed to handle this code in a way inconsistent with its
>> intent.
>but HTTP says:
>>     This word or the adjective "recommended" means that there may exist
>>     valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but
>>     the full implications should be understood and the case carefully
>>     weighed before choosing a different course.
>so what are the "valid reasons"?

Clickable maps are the valid reason.  The script processing a
clickable map URL like http://cgi-bin/imagemap?54,32 will return a 302
redirect to an URL like http://animals/cats/, and it makes *much* more
sense to show and bookmark the latter as the location.  I'd be
surprised if there were any user agent which does not bookmark the
second URL.  If you want to bookmark the first, you have the
additional problem of not having a title.

I think that the only way to get `bookmark the first URL' semantics
would be to define a completely new redirection code, or an extra
response header which would change the currently used 302 semantics if

(BTW, this existing practice with 302 is why I make so much fuss about
bookmarking the right URL in section 12.2 of the transparent content
negotiation draft.)

>- Larry


Received on Wednesday, 7 August 1996 17:05:18 UTC