Maxim Kirillov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:14:53PM +0100, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: > > It is not defined in HTTP specification to have a header > > with a fragment identifier. Actually to be honest the > > only mention of the word fragment is the sentence "The URI > > MUST NOT include a fragment." for a Referer header. The > > HTTP protocol does not handle fragment identifiers > > anywhere, it is only browsers that understand what they > > are and they are only valid for HTML type documents. > > Hmm, you seem to be right. Sad. I've detected this issue on > sending LiveJournal comments - it redirects to the new > comment. > > If anybody's interested: > http://zilla.livejournal.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2528 > > What do you think should be done here (in WWWOFFLE)? How > would you prefer it to react?
Before your e-mail I had already changed the code to handle a fragment in strange places better than it was previously. This case was not one of the ones that I changed. I have now changed the code so that it will remove fragment identifiers in all places that they should not be. > BTW, does wwwoffle follows the "meta-refresh" html link? > Does it consider (remove) the fragment there? Is there any > standard regarding this? "html4 specification" > (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-META) > seems to say nothing about it. Yes, WWWOFFLE does follow a meta-refresh html link when it is fetching. It didn't handle the fragment correctly before, but it will do now. -- Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew M. Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/ WWWOFFLE users page: http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.8/user.html
