On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Lex Spoon wrote:

[clarification of HTTP/1.1 redirects]

Thanks - that forces me to rethink (and maybe re-work) my swiki
redirect behavior ...

> Finally, the RFC does provide a specific method for redirect-using-GET,
> and that is response code 303.  Here that one case that Squeak gets
> wrong: it treats 303 and all other 3xx responses identically.  Instead,
> Squeak should continue to redirect the basic 301, 302, and 307 responses
> as POST's (after asking the user, ideally), but it should be changed to
> redirect 303 as a GET.  

Well, even the W3C recognizes the "302 redirects to GET" behavior as
de-facto standard, and invented the 303 and 307 codes:

      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.

So I'd say Squeak should follow the crowd here, since it only claims to be
HTTP/1.0 compliant anyways. That means silently redirect POSTs to GETs for
302/303 and redirect 301/307 POSTs to POSTs if the user confirms.

  -Bert-