Michael C. Neel
neel at mediapulse.com
Mon Dec 22 16:37:52 EST 2003
> directory and send a "Location: http://host/foo/" header. I was > first shocked by this (think of all the extra bytes flooding the > 'net because of this!!), but understand it's the only way within > the protocol to make relative links work. (Although it begs the > question why the protocol doesn't have a Real-Location header, or > some such, to let the browser know what the real url for the > requested page should be without having to go fetch it.) A 301 status is Moved Permanently, so that is your "Real-Location" header. In an ideal world browsers would update (or prompt to update) bookmarks on such a status, but it looks like that's not going to happen. A 302 is Moved Temporarily, for when you wouldn't want a browser to update it info, however given the way browsers ignore RFC's and W3C it wouldn't surprise me to find out browser x didn't handle a 302 correctly. I wonder how many browsers would know what to do with a 203, Non-Authoritative Information - which is sorta like a DNS query that's cached... Mike
|