Also, 301 might poison proxy-caches, so even if you clear the cache in your browser it might still not work.
301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
21–30 of 92 posts
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#22Why not just redirect back from the new to the old URL? A sane client should then check if the old 301 is still there (not sure if by the spec, but it is common sense). I believe I once tried this and it worked with Firefox. Not sure, though.
edit: > A sane client should then check if the old 301 is still there Check out kijin's comment about this.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#23Why not just redirect back from the new to the old URL? A sane client should then check if the old 301 is still there (not sure if by the spec, but it is common sense). I believe I once tried this and it worked with Firefox. Not sure, though.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#24Why not just redirect back from the new to the old URL? A sane client should then check if the old 301 is still there (not sure if by the spec, but it is common sense). I believe I once tried this and it worked with Firefox. Not sure, though.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#25That's what permanent means. "Adjective permanent Without end, eternal. Lasting for an indefinitely long time. " Also, "This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise," says RFC 2616. Working as designed, IMNSHO. Perhaps not working as intended , but alas, that's a case of ¬RTFM.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#26It would be good to get an indication of the potential impact.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#27That's what permanent means. "Adjective permanent Without end, eternal. Lasting for an indefinitely long time. " Also, "This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise," says RFC 2616. Working as designed, IMNSHO. Perhaps not working as intended , but alas, that's a case of ¬RTFM.
This seems yet another example of web professionals not understanding HTTP. Much like webpages that say "404 not found" with a "200 OK" header.
But yeah, I agree- (though I've missed them I'm sure) I pretty voraciously make sure my HTTP status matches my intended response- and sometimes that means you've got to write the code in the controller that tells the request to specifically return a certain status.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#28I took over a domain which had previously 301-redirected HTTP:// to HTTPS://. It caused us no end of trouble getting the alpha site online -- obviously we set up SSL but we didn't realise it was the _first thing we'd have to do_. It also caused half a day of confusion to understand why some of our web browsers were still failing to connect and others could see the alpha site (because they'd never visited the previous…
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#29Also, start with a 302, and only change the status to 301 once you're confident they are correct.