W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: WG Last Call for draft-schulzrinne-http-status-00.txt

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 15:54:08 PST
Message-Id: <9711202354.AA09077@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4781
I basically agree with Roy on this one; don't add more digits
to the status-code number.

One thing that has always bugged me is that an HTTP response
carries exactly one status code, and we often have to work hard
to figure out which one that should be.  There are times when
it would be better to have a way to communicate multiple dimensions
of status information.

That's why we added the Warning header.   Maybe we should be
encouraging protocols layered over HTTP (such as WEBDAV) to
think in terms of adding new headers, rather than new status
codes?  I.e.,

	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
	DAV-Status: DAV/1.3 3141592 Pie is ready

This seems to be a better way of dealing with layering.

Received on Thursday, 20 November 1997 16:00:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC