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

Re: Status 102, Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt]

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:40:45 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tnbgx7cm16f2qb@quark>

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:42:08 +0100, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>  
wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> I haven't read the document in detail yet, but one thing that should be  
>> considered is the choice of the new status code, 102. It collides with  
>> the definition in RFC2518, a standards track RFC (see  
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.10.1>).

I haven't read either of these before, but isn't the HTTP 1.1-defined "202  
Accepted" exactly what 102 tries to be? From HTTP 1.1:

   The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has not
   been completed.

The word "processing" is even mentioned twice in the first sentence.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 07:40:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT