- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:57:11 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:44:30PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > > Regarding redirection, we're in somewhat of an interesting situation. > > I *think* the WG's intent is to support automagic redirection. > > However, there is langugage to this effect in the definitions of 301, > > 302 and 307; > > > > If the 307 status code is received in response to a request other > > than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect > > the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this > > might change the conditions under which the request was issued. > > > > In other words, because we use POST, client applications cannot be > > HTTP compliant and automatically redirect SOAP requests (unless you > > take great license with 'confirmed by the user'). > > Henrik and I discussed this exact issue a while ago off-line. > IIRC, he suggested that the MUST NOT was likely too strong. > I admitted to being surprised by it too. No matter what we decide to do about redirection, I think the HTTP binding needs to say something about the use of 3xx redirection; while we can re-interpret 2616 to suit ourselves, implementors need some guidance. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 22:57:14 UTC