A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.
To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).
HTTP: Difference between revisions
(New page: This page is an attempt to document some discrepancies between browsers and RFC 2616 (and its successor, RFC 2616) because the HTTP WG seems unwilling to resolve those issues. Hopefully on...) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
For 301 and 302 redirects browsers uniformly ignore HTTP and use GET for the subsequent request when the initial request used an unsafe method. (The user is not prompted.) | For 301 and 302 redirects browsers uniformly ignore HTTP and use GET for the subsequent request when the initial request used an unsafe method. (The user is not prompted.) | ||
'''Raised:''' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg225 | |||
== Location header == | == Location header == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Browsers handle relative URIs and URIs with invalid characters in interoperable fashion. | Browsers handle relative URIs and URIs with invalid characters in interoperable fashion. | ||
'''Raised:''' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JanMar/thread.html#msg276 | |||
== Content-Location header == | == Content-Location header == | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Browsers cannot support this header. | Browsers cannot support this header. | ||
'''Raised:''' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/thread.html#msg190 | |||
== Requiring two interoperable browser implementations == | == Requiring two interoperable browser implementations == | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
To proof that RFC 2616 can be implemented there should be two compatible implementations in browsers. | To proof that RFC 2616 can be implemented there should be two compatible implementations in browsers. | ||
'''Raised:''' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JanMar/0222.html | |||
Revision as of 16:41, 30 March 2009
This page is an attempt to document some discrepancies between browsers and RFC 2616 (and its successor, RFC 2616) because the HTTP WG seems unwilling to resolve those issues. Hopefully one day someone writes HTTP5 and takes this into account.
Redirects
For 301 and 302 redirects browsers uniformly ignore HTTP and use GET for the subsequent request when the initial request used an unsafe method. (The user is not prompted.)
Raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg225
Location header
Browsers handle relative URIs and URIs with invalid characters in interoperable fashion.
Raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JanMar/thread.html#msg276
Content-Location header
Browsers cannot support this header.
Raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/thread.html#msg190
Requiring two interoperable browser implementations
To proof that RFC 2616 can be implemented there should be two compatible implementations in browsers.
Raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JanMar/0222.html