Re: 301/302
David W. Morris (dwm@xpasc.com)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Lou Montulli wrote:
> > The 307 proposal works. Lets do it.
> >
>
> I'm definately coming late to this discussion, but I have some strong
> thoughtsto offer.
>
> 99.2% of the browsers in use today including all versions of netscape and IE
> reissue POST redirects with a GET. It would be incredibly fool hardy to
> try and change this behaviour now. It is far easier to swap the meaning of
> 303 and 301/302 than it is to fix every CGI in the world as well as every old
> browser in the world. I doubt that any commercial vendor is willing to
> release a product that will break a large number of sites simply to claim
> compliance with this spec.
>
> How is this issue going to get resolved? This tread died out almost a month
> ago yet there is no solution yet. The current situation is unworkable.
I thought we had reached concensus that 302 would be redefined to current
practice that 301 and 303 were correctly defined AND that a new
code (307) would mean what 302 currently says.
But I don't recall anyone declaring concensus or providing actual proposed
wording changes.
Dave Morris