On 16.09.2010 11:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:50:41 +0200, Julian Reschke
<julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote:
If using followRedirect() is easy, but manually following it is hard,
people might choose the wrong approach just because it's easier.
Well, what is wrong and what is right is still an open issue in the HTTP
WG.
Yes, that's <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/160>.
I note that there are servers out there that expect method name
preservation upon 301/302 (such as Apache/moddav), and that there are
clients out there that do this.
I don't believe that we're going to make these cases non-compliant;
maximally, we could state the special situation for POST (and just that,
not all methods).
I think that obtaining the resolved Location for the redirect is the
most tricky part, and we should come up with a solution where that is
also available for people who do not want the default browser behavior.
I don't really like special casing the Location header here. It seems we
are ending up with two additional members for dealing with redirects. I
do not want another one. There are other headers where resolving a URL
might be needed. Adding a parameter to navigator.resolveURL() for a base
URL is the way to go I think.
That sounds good to me. In general I think it would be great if there
were standard APIs for URI/IRI construction, parsing and resolution...
Best regards, Julian
