- 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>
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 UTC