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

Re: New Status Code -- 2xx Greedy Hotel?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:56:22 +0000
Message-Id: <F4350D58-58BB-4DF1-857D-203309BD3935@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

The problem is that current browsers wouldn't know what to do with  
it, so adoption will be difficult at best.


On 15/03/2007, at 1:55 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I wonder if a specific redirect code wouldn't be better.
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2007-03-15 13:48:17 +0000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>> To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:48:17 +0000
>> Subject: New Status Code -- 2xx Greedy Hotel?
>> List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
>> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/76F49FF4-54D7-4917-85A3- 
>> A0D648E57C7E@mnot.net
>> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
>>
>
>> After being in hotels for a few weeks, I'm starting to wonder  
>> whether a new 2xx HTTP status
>> code could be defined whose semantic is "This isn't what you asked  
>> for, but here's some
>> information about how to get network access so you can eventually  
>> get it."
>
>> 2xx so that browsers will display it. AFAICT, they do; or at  
>> least, Safari and Firefox do (see
>> <http://www.mnot.net/test/222.asis>). IE? 4xx might be more  
>> appropriate, but I despair of
>> "friendly" error messages. (thought they could be padded, I suppose).
>
>> A new status code so that feed aggregators, automated clients,  
>> etc. can differentiate what they
>> asked for from your hotel / conference centre / etc. asking for  
>> cash in order to get network
>> access, and not get horribly messed up as a result.
>
>> It would also be useful in those cases where you get redirected  
>> somewhere to login and get a
>> cookie for authentication; e.g., Yahoo!, Google, Amazon, etc. Same  
>> situation, but slightly
>> different use case.
>
>> Thoughts?
>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:56:30 GMT

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