302 vs. 307

Anyone using a 307 instead?

[pageoneresults]

With all the hubub about concerning the issues with 302s, I was wondering if anyone has any experience using a 307 instead?

Note that even though the current practice is to use the 302 Found status code for temporary redirects, it is best kept for "undefined" redirects, and the 307 Temporary Redirect status code should be preferred for this purpose.

References

• Common HTTP Implementation Problems - Guideline 2: Allow URI management [w3.org]
  
• 10.3.3 302 Found [w3.org]
  
• 10.3.8 307 Temporary Redirect [w3.org]

[encyclo]

I didn't know that 307 redirects existed - you learn something every day! ;) A few quick tests show that it is well-supported by Apache and browsers, but I would guess it's rarer than "410 Gone" in the real world - 302 redirects are the default. I suspect (with no real evidence to back it up) that it would be seen as a synonym of a 302 redirect.

[jdMorgan]

If you do use these response status codes, make sure the client publishes HTTP/1.1. If not, then revert to 404 and 302.

410 and 307 aren't defined by HTTP/1.0, and if an HTTP/1.0 client received them, it would revert to the even less-specific 400 and 300 handlers...

It certainly would be interesting to know what --if any-- difference there was in the recent handling (or mis-handling) of 302 vs. 307 by two well-known search engines.

Jim

[encyclo]

410 and 307 aren't defined by HTTP/1.0

So... as Googlebot/Slurp/MSNbot still all define themselves as only supporting HTTP/1.0 in the request (despite in reality supporting/sending the HTTP host header for name-based virtual hosting), we shouldn't actually be serving 410s and 307s to them anyway?