Comments on: Firefox vs. PRG

By: Mark Baker

Mark Baker — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:37:15 +0000

Yes, 302 is sometimes treated as being identical to 303, unfortunately, which is why 307 was created. Still, 303 is better than 302 in this case because there’s less ambiguity.

By: Mark Baker

Mark Baker — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:30:55 +0000

Ouch, that’s a bug. The warning should show on a POST request that results in a 302 or 301 response. As I say, 303 is the only http response code with PRG semantics.

I’ll submit a bug when I get a chance.

By: david

david — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:42:57 +0000

Thanks for catching that, Paul — I’ve fixed the mangled attribute.

By: Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:23:02 +0000

Hi – the form is not rendering in Safari due to missing quote in “input” tag. BTW all working with PRG, on Firefox 1.5.0.4 on Mac (OS X 10.4)

By: david

david — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:16:45 +0000

Since I updated Ubuntu on the weekend (same upstream Firefox version), PRG is working fine. By default, PHP5 generates a 302 when I set a location header, but I see no difference with 303. For anyone else interested, I've put a small test online: http://www.megginson.com/test/prg/prg-test.html.

By: Mark Baker

Mark Baker — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:07:01 +0000

Nobody’s mentioned the response code, but I assume this is all using 303, right? That’s the only redirect response code with semantics that align with PRG as described. If you were using 301 or 302, then Firefox’s behaviour would be appropriate because that’s telling the client to POST to a new URI, not – as with 303 – to find the results at some other URI.

By: Jean Helou

Jean Helou — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:56:13 +0000

Same problem here on windows … preventing us from using our selenium based tests

By: david

david — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:05:37 +0000

You saw the same as me, Aristotle? If so, then it sounds like a bug specific to the Linux version. I’m glad to hear it’s not a general practice.

By: Aristotle Pagaltzis

Aristotle Pagaltzis — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:44:01 +0000

Whereas I can confirm seeing the same, using the following:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3

By: Chris Nokleberg

Chris Nokleberg — Wed, 31 May 2006 23:05:28 +0000

I’m in the middle of developing a webapp that makes heavy use of P-R-G and that’s not my experience with Firefox 1.5.0.3 (on Windows at least). Perhaps it is a bug triggered by certain headers in your redirect or something.