W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Maurizio Codogno: Re: '205 Reset Document' (was Any more comments?)

From: <http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:49:57 +0100
Message-Id: <199508251049.AA162377797@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
This was sent (probably erroneously) to the http-wg-REQUEST address.

					-- ange -- <><

					ange@hplb.hpl.hp.com

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:38:40 +0200
From:    mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it (Maurizio Codogno)
To:      http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Subject: Re: '205 Reset Document' (was Any more comments?)

 hedlund@best.com (Marc Hedlund) suggests ;

% '205 Reset Document', suggested in a followup, would be an explicit request
% for this behavior.
% 
% The idea was not to give the user another choice, it was to provide a
% response that says, "that last one was okay, go ahead with the next one,
% and keep using the same form."  The user won't see a different result --
% the same resetting can be accomplished, for instance, by resending the
% blank form.  The difference would be in the speed of the response.

I think it is an excellent idea - I was noticing that it's not really
user friendly to ask people to reload a page.

I have a related question: What happens if a server does not recognize 
a status code?

.mau.

------- End of Forwarded Message
Received on Friday, 25 August 1995 03:51:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:26 EDT