-
Jon Dufresne authored
Modern browsers don't render this HTML so it goes unused in practice. The delivered bytes are therefore a small waste (although very small) and unnecessary and could be optimized away. Additionally, the HTML fails validation. Using the W3C v.Nu, we see the following errors: Warning: Consider adding a lang attribute to the html start tag to declare the language of this document. Error: Start tag seen without seeing a doctype first. Expected <!DOCTYPE html>. Error: Element head is missing a required instance of child element title. These errors may surface in site-wide compliance tests (either internal tests or external contractual tests). Avoid the false positives by removing the HTML. While these warnings and errors could be resolved, it would be simpler on future maintenance to remove the body altogether (especially as it isn't rendered by the browser). As the same string is copied around a few places, this removes multiple touch points to resolve the current validation errors as well as new ones. Many other frameworks and web servers don't include an HTML body on redirect, so there isn't a reason for Rails to do so. By removing the custom Rails HTML, there are fewing "fingerprints" that a malicious bot could use to identify the backend technologies. Application controllers that wish to add a response body after calling redirect_to can continue to do so.Jon Dufresne authoredModern browsers don't render this HTML so it goes unused in practice. The delivered bytes are therefore a small waste (although very small) and unnecessary and could be optimized away. Additionally, the HTML fails validation. Using the W3C v.Nu, we see the following errors: Warning: Consider adding a lang attribute to the html start tag to declare the language of this document. Error: Start tag seen without seeing a doctype first. Expected <!DOCTYPE html>. Error: Element head is missing a required instance of child element title. These errors may surface in site-wide compliance tests (either internal tests or external contractual tests). Avoid the false positives by removing the HTML. While these warnings and errors could be resolved, it would be simpler on future maintenance to remove the body altogether (especially as it isn't rendered by the browser). As the same string is copied around a few places, this removes multiple touch points to resolve the current validation errors as well as new ones. Many other frameworks and web servers don't include an HTML body on redirect, so there isn't a reason for Rails to do so. By removing the custom Rails HTML, there are fewing "fingerprints" that a malicious bot could use to identify the backend technologies. Application controllers that wish to add a response body after calling redirect_to can continue to do so.
Loading