W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

extending status codes

From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:13:35 -0400
Message-ID: <68fba5c50705171113q745741fm9c4f0f03585b054b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

I recently got into a debate with a colleague about whether it would
be acceptable to use higher 5xx codes for custom status codes. I
maintained no, it's a shared namespace, we shouldn't do that. But the
response was "show me where it says you can't do that". To me it seems
implied, but maybe it's not to someone who wants to Get Work Done as
fast as possible by writing a switch statement on a number.

Could we get a sentence explaining that adding status codes requires


Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 18:13:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:23 UTC