Le Lun 20 février 2012 20:30, Jeff King a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 08:24:15PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> > I think a good first step would be improving the error message for a >> > 511, then. Unfortunately, it seems from the rfc draft you sent that >> > callers are expected to parse the link out of the HTML given in the body >> > of the response. It seems silly that there is not a Location field >> > associated with a 511, similar to redirects. >> >> The URL is not lost in the HTML text, it's in the url meta field >> >> <meta http-equiv="refresh" >> content="0; url=https://login.example.net/";> > > Sorry, but > > 1. That is in the HTML in the body of the response (by body I don't > mean the HTML <body>, but the body of the http request). > > 2. I don't see anything in the rfc indicating that there must be a > meta tag in the response. They use it in the example of the rfc, > but they also have human-readable text with an <a> link. Do we yet > know what will be common among captive portals? > > You said you have a non-hypothetical case. Can you show us the response? Not yet because it's currently non-standard custom redirection mess we're repurposing to follow the ietf spec (got tired of being accused of running a crap non-standard proxy by users, so now it's ll be a crap standard proxy) The proxy response is totally configurable (a so there's no reason we won't follow the new spec to the letter -- Nicolas Mailhot -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html