[thelist] Site check: Staples.com

[Robert Gormley]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org 
> [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Shawn K. Quinn
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 September 2005 9:39 PM
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: RE: [thelist] Site check: Staples.com
> 
> On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 21:18 +1000, Robert Gormley wrote:
>   [I wrote:]
> > > I'm not asking that they cater to any one configuration, 
> just that 
> > > they do what works, according to the RFCs and standards, 
> 100% of the 
> > > time. I have yet to see an HTTP code 301 or 302 redirect fail to 
> > > work.
> > 
> > I'm very confused, now. What RFCs and standards do they 
> break? Because 
> > the redirect works, is issued according to standards.
> 
> If it worked, 100% of the time, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> Javascript is a strictly optional browser component.
> 
> Again, I have yet to see an HTTP code 301 or 302 redirect 
> fail to work, anywhere.

Your implication is that the site is non-conformant: "works, according
to the RFCs and standards".

And whilst I /do/ agree with the use of 301/302, etc... I can tell you
definitively of several environments where 301/302 redirects
categorically do NOT work: most i-mode/wap 2g/wap 3g platforms. Where
provider implementation details spell this out as an issue, handsets
(that next bastion of a truly potable web, one way or another) either
are not followed, or are 'quite broken'.

It's also a lot more difficult to upgrade phone firmware than a desktop
browser.

But, I will admit, this is me playing devil's advocate now.

Rob