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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 02 July 2011 07:06 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 0C75221F85CC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 00:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, 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 5X60vDMxCM54 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 00:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF4F21F8561 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 00:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QcuGM-0006jm-8J for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:05:10 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1QcuG7-0005CQ-RJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:04:55 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1QcuG6-0001oP-8k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:04:55 +0000
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.116.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D077509B3; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 03:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E0E059F.7050308@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:04:30 +1000
Cc: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A4C0485-E1C7-416D-A969-3AEC77CD4042@mnot.net>
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> <4E0E059F.7050308@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1QcuG6-0001oP-8k d27b5737f173366b13c3f382f3c60b14
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/8A4C0485-E1C7-416D-A969-3AEC77CD4042@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10856
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: <E1QcuGM-0006jm-8J@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:05:10 +0000

On 02/07/2011, at 3:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

My recollection was that we didn't have interop in browsers, and we didn't have an indication of a strong desire from them one way or the other. I'd say we have both now.

Perhaps we should ping the TAG to get their thoughts? Absent strong objection, it seems like we can have an easy interop win here.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/