On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Subhranath Chunder
wrote:
> I got the idea of what was happening looking at the behavior pattern itself.
> But, what I was not sure whether these behaviors were defined or just
> working like that. Which might lead to some other inconsistencies.
> As, in my case th
I got the idea of what was happening looking at the behavior pattern itself.
But, what I was not sure whether these behaviors were defined or just
working like that. Which might lead to some other inconsistencies.
As, in my case the fragment was coming from some other third-party source.
Facebook
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Subhranath Chunder
wrote:
> Yes, I do understand that fragment identifiers are not sent to the server.
> But, I was not talking about that.
> Infact, I was talking about the fragments send in the response as http 302
> response specifically.
> Maybe, I'll put a lit
Yes, I do understand that fragment identifiers are not sent to the server.
But, I was not talking about that.
Infact, I was talking about the fragments send in the response as http 302
response specifically.
Maybe, I'll put a little code snippet below to explain the case better: :)
urls.py
=
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Subhranath Chunder
wrote:
> I was wondering whether this current behavior with respect to http redirects
> on fragmented urls is actually a desired behavior, or some bug.
> Let's suppose the user issues a GET request to the URI '/action#home'.
Stop. Browsers do n
5 matches
Mail list logo
