See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-http-status-308-01.
Basically, it is a new kind of redirect that doesn't cause any problems, doesn't have any benefits to us (AFAICT), and isn't standardized yet. If we add support for it, we are basically endorsing this as an addition to the HTTP protocol. It would be good for our team to provide feedback on it. Julian has already written a patch to add support for it in Firefox. The Firefox patch (AFAICT) treats 308 exactly like a 307. We should give him a response one way or the other. I don't think it is very important, and I am generally opposed to making minor new features to HTTP like this unless they have a major benefit, because they end up creating compatibility problems because there will always be products that take forever to support the addition. So, I am leaning towards saying "nope, do not want." Also, I can see the point of a permanent redirect for some cases (e.g. telling a search engine that it should start preferring something else), but I have a hard time seeing why we need a permanent redirect for non-GET requests in the real world and especially in browsers. In the real world, if you need to permanently change where something gets POSTed to, you change the thing that makes the POST request. That kind of permanent change usually (AFAICT) shouldn't be done automatically for security reasons, so in some sense the requirement for manual intervention makes sense. And, status code 307 already has the same semantics without the idea of the redirect being "permanent." All that said, it is a relatively benign change. - Brian _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
