- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: 2008年12月23日 09:06:51 +0100 (CET)
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0812230900010.10399@yvahk3.pbagnpgbe.fr>
On 2008年12月21日, Eric Lawrence wrote: > Can you please elaborate further here-- do specific examples come to mind? > > For as long as I can recall, Netscape, IE, Firefox, Safari, etc, have > treated 301, 302, and 303 as "redirect with GET" while 307 is treated as > "redirect with original method." This matches Yngve's findings. > > I would be fascinated to find a web browser that behaves differently. I don't have the specific users nor servers around to tell, no. I guess I'm just saying that the wording in RFC2616 has made people go both ways and thus boys ways is what we've felt necessary to support in our redirection-following logic. It's of course entirely possible that this was done for something that weren't including any of the major browsers, but the fact remains. In my reading, a POST that gets a 301 or 302 back, SHOULD NOT change that to a GET in the subsequent request. The only clients who'd do that are those who want to mimic old non-compliant browsers. Of course, that ends up just about all browsers I guess (including libcurl in its default behavior). -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 08:07:33 UTC