Redirection upon a POST

[Dawit A.]

On Thursday 27 January 2005 04:34, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> I don't see how this has anything to do with the difference between 302 or
> 303.

Please read 10.3.1/2/3/4 or the entire 10.3 section of RFC 2616.

> Re-posting on a 302 wouldn't fix this case and it would break many 
> other sites.

Here is what section 10.3.2 302 Found in RFC 2616 states:

If the 302 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.

      Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed
      to change the method on the redirected request.  However, most
      existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303
      response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless
      of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have
      been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which
      kind of reaction is expected of the client.

> Webserver's don't send 302 or 303's out of their own, it's the 
> website-developer or the stack on top of it that tells the webserver what
> to send. Whether the server speaks HTTP/1.1 is irrelevant.

As stated above the reason for this is that the behavior of the client apps 
was completely broken pre HTTP/1.1. Regardless there is a problem with the 
current behavior as pointed out by dfaure...

-- 
Regards,
Dawit A.
"Preach what you practice, practice what you preach"