W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

RE: 505 HTTP Version Not Supported

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:55:45 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960403185545Z-14984@red-06-imc.itg.microsoft.com>
To: 'Daniel DuBois' <ddubois@spyglass.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'cshotton@biap.com'" <cshotton@biap.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/173

>From: 	cshotton@biap.com[SMTP:cshotton@biap.com]
>Subject: 	Re: 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
>>The appropriate response to a 505 for a 1.0 client is the same as for a 500:
>>total failure, report the entity body to the user.  Following the logic of
>>your line of arguement, we should just get rid of all 5xx codes and have one
>>500 code.
>I'd certainly prefer that to a proliferation of them if that's the only
>choice. Especially since the 500 series has been misdocumented and/or
>misimplement since their inception.

This is a red herring. Adding 505 will not confuse correct (and probably
most incorrect) existing clients any more than overloading an existing
code into meaninglessness -- they'll display the entity body.

But making a new error code allows new clients to try and be clever
about how they react. (Ditto with getting people to implement to other
500 series correctly.)

I'm for 505. And meaningful status codes that convey information in a
way that allows programmatic response when appropriate, in general.

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 1996 10:59:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC