Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) id TAA20802; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from plato.alameda-coe.k12.ca.us by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) with SMTP id TAA20798; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from pappilloma.wwebsvs.com by plato.alameda-coe.k12.ca.us with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vqsc0-000OZMC; Sat, 1 Feb 97 19:29 PST Received: from ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us by pappilloma.wwebsvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13665; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:34:23 -0800 Received: from localhost by ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us with SMTP (1.37.109.20/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA293054577; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:36:17 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:36:17 -0800 (PST) From: Alexei Kosut To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: PR#77 issue 301 for "foo -> foo/" directory redirects In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Marc Slemko wrote: > +1. > > On the topic of redirects... when I access http://www.microsoft.com/ right > now, I get redirected _FOUR_ times before reaching an actual document. > Sheesh. Speaking of www.microsoft.com... makes you wonder if they even know that there *is* a HTTP/1.0 specification. Take a look at this request I just tried: HEAD / HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.0 200 OK Server: Microsoft-IIS/3.0 Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:27:17 GMT cache-control: private Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Length: 16989 Content-type: text/html Expires: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:27:16 GMT Set-Cookie: MC1=GUID=5dab5f9d7ca811d09ac90000f8600b8c&ID=5dab5f9c7ca811d09ac90000f8600b8c; expires=Wed, 15-Sep-1999 19:00:00 GMT; domain=.microsoft.com; path=/ Cache-control: private Wow... Okay. Let's count what's wrong: 1. The returned headers and status code are drastically different than what happens if I send a GET instead of a HEAD. (it returns a 302 in that case) c.f. section 8.2 of RFC 1495.. 2. It sent me a keep-alive token, even though I didn't send it one (admittedly, it did not keep the connection open, but...) c.f. section 19.7.1 of RFC 2068. 3. There are two cache-control headers (spelled differently, too - and an Expires header a second in the past - they really don't want you caching this document, do they?) I guess this isn't technically wrong, but... c.f. section 14.9 of RFC 2068. At any rate, I think returning a 301 is a good idea. If taken literally, 301 and 410 should never be sent, because at some point in time, you might want to change it, but I think that if they satisfy the "If I come back tomorrow, will it still be the same?" test, it's perfectly okay to use them. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Alexei Kosut The Apache HTTP Server URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/