Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Describing current practice for 301 and 302

Expand Messages
  • Larry Masinter
    Even though ignoring-query-part-of-URL might be current practice in some HTTP servers, I m not sure that it belongs in the HTTP/1.0 description of current
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 1, 1996
    • 0 Attachment
      Even though ignoring-query-part-of-URL might be current practice in
      some HTTP servers, I'm not sure that it belongs in the HTTP/1.0
      description of 'current practice' because it isn't a protocol issue.
      (Just like HTTP/1.0 protocol doesn't care if the server is implemented
      using a file system, a database, CGI, etc.)

      It's certainly not *required* that they ignore the query part of URLs.
    • David W. Morris
      ... Well, protocols are about interoperability but my contribution was only intended to refine understanding of current practice ... I have not intended to
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 1996
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Larry Masinter wrote:

        > Even though ignoring-query-part-of-URL might be current practice in
        > some HTTP servers, I'm not sure that it belongs in the HTTP/1.0
        > description of 'current practice' because it isn't a protocol issue.
        > (Just like HTTP/1.0 protocol doesn't care if the server is implemented
        > using a file system, a database, CGI, etc.)
        >
        > It's certainly not *required* that they ignore the query part of URLs.

        Well, protocols are about interoperability but my contribution was only
        intended to refine understanding of current practice ... I have not
        intended to advocate requireing anything which is a moot point anyway.

        Furthermore, in this case, the HTML pages which include forms, etc.
        which result in QRY URLs will be done in the context of a specific
        server and if the ignore doesn't happen, I presume the HTML author
        will adjust.

        Dave
      • Koen Holtman
        ... It is indeed done by a fair number of clients. As a data point: all three user agents on my Linux box do it this way (see my first message for the user
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 1, 1996
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul Hoffman:
          >[Koen Holtman:]
          >>It is worth noting because most user agents in use now change the POST
          >>to a GET. Thus, there is a discrepancy between current practice and
          >>the 1.0 informational definition. It is important to warn about such
          >>discrepancies in the 1.0 document.
          >
          >This sounds OK to me, if it is done by a fair number of well-intentioned
          >(if not misguided) HTTP/1.0 clients.

          It is indeed done by a fair number of clients. As a data point: all
          three user agents on my Linux box do it this way (see my first message
          for the user agent names and versions).

          I trust that you will add the second version of my note to the 301 and
          302 descriptions in the 1.0 draft.

          >--Paul Hoffman
          >--Internet Mail Consortium

          Koen.
        • Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
          ... The reason for this mess is that there was some confusion about the 303 Method return code by which you could actually change the method to perform on the
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 1, 1996
          • 0 Attachment
            Koen Holtman writes:
            > Paul Hoffman:
            > >[Koen Holtman:]
            > >>It is worth noting because most user agents in use now change the POST
            > >>to a GET. Thus, there is a discrepancy between current practice and
            > >>the 1.0 informational definition. It is important to warn about such
            > >>discrepancies in the 1.0 document.

            The reason for this mess is that there was some confusion about the 303 Method
            return code by which you could actually change the method to perform on the
            object. I think this note is OK if we add the word "erroneously" to this
            change of method!

            + Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after
            + receiving a 301 status code, some existing user agents will
            + change it into a GET request.


            --

            Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@...>
            World-Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-356
            545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.