HTTP HEAD方法的可靠性 [英] Reliability of HTTP HEAD method

问题描述

我正在尝试自动检测断开的链接，我惊讶地看到HTTP HEAD方法并不总是可靠的。例如网址： http://www.youtube.com/mit - 可以使用以下网址访问该网址GET方法但尝试使用HEAD方法联系URL最终会收到404错误（未找到）。

I'm trying to automate detection of broken links and I was startled to see that HTTP HEAD method is not always reliable. For example the URL: http://www.youtube.com/mit -- the URL is accessible with GET method but trying to contact the URL with HEAD method ends up with receiving 404 error (not found).

注意：可以通过以下网址轻松查看该示例： http://web-sniffer.net/
（我不以任何方式与网页挂钩）

Note: The example can be easily checked online via: http://web-sniffer.net/ (I'm not affiliated with the webpage in any way)

那么HEAD方法到底有多可靠？

So how reliable is the HEAD method in the end?

作为一个合理的解决方案，我看到不要使用HEAD总是使用GET方法，但它是浪费带宽。

As a reasonable solution I see just don't use HEAD and always use GET method always but it is wastes bandwidth.

推荐答案

HEAD 需要按照 RFC 中的说明进行操作;但是，它的实现总是受任何特定站点的开发人员的支配，并且不可能强制执行RFC兼容性。您可以相当确信任何网站都可能支持 HEAD ，但正如您已经发现的那样，没有任何保证。

HEAD is required to work as described in the RFC; however, its implementation is always at the mercy of the developers of any specific site, and it is not possible to enforce RFC-compliance. You could be fairly confident that any site is likely to support HEAD reasonably well, but as you have already discovered, there are no guarantees.

这篇关于HTTP HEAD方法的可靠性的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！