4 ms·

If a user has a bookmark for http://a.com/ http://a.com/, and the ISP redirects with a 301 Permanent Redirect to http://isp.net/ http://isp.net/, the browser wi

If a user has a bookmark for http://a.com/ http://a.com/, and the ISP redirects with a 301 Permanent Redirect to http://isp.net/ http://isp.net/, the browser will rewrite a.com to isp.net.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Huh, interesting - what browser is that?
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Like, all of them?
  - pmontra 11y ago
    Mmm, that's a browser that attempts to be smart at bookmarks management. I have a tablet with a SIM of that company. I'm using Dolphin on that tablet and I get redirected. However Dolphin doesn't rewrite my bookmarks. Maybe it's not a 301 redirect or maybe Dolphin is (luckily) not so smart.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Not browsers being smart as much as this is being explicitly mentioned in the RFC - updating bookmarks and other references is kind of the point of 301 Moved Permanently. To quote from RFC 7231: The 301 (Moved Permanently) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs. Clients with link-editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the effective request URI to one or more of the new references sent by the server, where possible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.2
      - pmontra 11y ago
        I didn't know about that, thanks. Then I looked for the sanctioned meaning of "ought to" and found https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6919.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6919.txt "The phrase "OUGHT TO" conveys an optimistic assertion of an implementation behavior that is clearly morally right, and thus does not require substantiation." But it's dated 1st April 2013 so that's a dead end :-) Still I think that "ought to" in RFC 7231 is close to what 6919 "prescribed" or they would have used MUST or SHALL. Furthermore there is the matter of history and URL autocompletion. I don't know if it should be OK to rewrite history. I'm fine with handling all of that manually.

If a user has a bookmark for http://a.com/ http://a.com/, and the ISP redirects with a 301 Permanent Redirect to http://isp.net/ http://isp.net/, the browser will rewrite a.com to isp.net.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

Huh, interesting - what browser is that?

ryanlol 11y ago
Like, all of them?
- pmontra 11y ago
  Mmm, that's a browser that attempts to be smart at bookmarks management. I have a tablet with a SIM of that company. I'm using Dolphin on that tablet and I get redirected. However Dolphin doesn't rewrite my bookmarks. Maybe it's not a 301 redirect or maybe Dolphin is (luckily) not so smart.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Not browsers being smart as much as this is being explicitly mentioned in the RFC - updating bookmarks and other references is kind of the point of 301 Moved Permanently. To quote from RFC 7231: The 301 (Moved Permanently) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs. Clients with link-editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the effective request URI to one or more of the new references sent by the server, where possible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.2
    - pmontra 11y ago
      I didn't know about that, thanks. Then I looked for the sanctioned meaning of "ought to" and found https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6919.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6919.txt "The phrase "OUGHT TO" conveys an optimistic assertion of an implementation behavior that is clearly morally right, and thus does not require substantiation." But it's dated 1st April 2013 so that's a dead end :-) Still I think that "ought to" in RFC 7231 is close to what 6919 "prescribed" or they would have used MUST or SHALL. Furthermore there is the matter of history and URL autocompletion. I don't know if it should be OK to rewrite history. I'm fine with handling all of that manually.