What behavior is meant by 'was working'?
Behavior depends on the request type per RFC 2616:
If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other
than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the
request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might
change the conditions under which the request was issued.
Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not
allowed
to change the method on the redirected request. However, most
existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303
response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless
of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have
been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear
which
kind of reaction is expected of the client.
Maybe you're POSTing and IE is responding correctly???
Have you tried a 307 response with IE?
But also, maybe IE is paying attention to your HTTP 1.0 method and
you actually implement 1.1 virtual hosting on the server?
Ironically, MS seems to often implement per standards these days.
They may be actually strictly following what you're asking for.
On May 29, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Dan Stein wrote:
<@ASSIGN request$httpHeader "HTTP/1.0 302 Moved<@CRLF>Location:
http://<@domain><@VAR user$last_page_visited><@CRLF><@CRLF>">
This was working but now seems to be rejected by IE. Works fine on
Foxfire and on all Mac Browsers but IE 6 and 7 both seem to ignore
this. Any ideas?
______________________________________________________________________
__ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
Bill
William M. Conlon, P.E., Ph.D.
To the Point
345 California Avenue Suite 2
Palo Alto, CA 94306
vox: 650.327.2175 (direct)
fax: 650.329.8335
mobile: 650.906.9929
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.tothept.com
________________________________________________________________________
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
