Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 01 July 2011 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D5211E8085 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhMTsA4JR7zT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7960C1F0CA6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QcheN-0000Ip-EL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:37:07 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1QcheH-0000Gy-CH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:37:01 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1QcheG-0000AN-38 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:37:01 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Jul 2011 17:36:34 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 01 Jul 2011 19:36:34 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18rD75vaRsr4/La6oak5jBDuQHnsiqJ+RlKlbQ1LV B7Uzx5F1Eblc1z
Message-ID: <4E0E059F.7050308@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:36:31 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <6A53E99A-019D-4F6D-A33D-24524CD34E17@mnot.net> <BANLkTinkgsBO6JhWZUGWhGu+6DRidLwLog@mail.gmail.com> <479CAD406474484E8FA0E39E694732C017C0C353@DF-M14-03.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <EA6B8FDD-735E-4435-958E-CEC26698C610@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <EA6B8FDD-735E-4435-958E-CEC26698C610@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1QcheG-0000AN-38 c86795f5bc6f06845cbc4db6a1bf8b9a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4E0E059F.7050308@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10852
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1QcheN-0000Ip-EL@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:37:07 +0000

On 2011-05-28 03:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Thanks, Eric -- that's very helpful.
>
> Speaking just about #295 for the moment, does anyone have a concern about defining the behaviour as in draft-bos-http-redirect?
> ...

My concern is similar to what was brought up in the context of issue 43 
-- it's not entirely clear whether HTTPbis has any business in defining 
this (that is; is this an aspect of media types or of redirects?).

I don't think we ever came to a conclusion about this in the context of 
#43, as, in the end, we didn't define the behavior.

Best regards, Julian