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

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

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:51:29 +1300
Message-ID: <45F9B1D1.4070103@qbik.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>


sorry - meant 303 not 307.


Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>
> Isn't this a symptom of the problem with the initial redirect code?
>
> If the automated client thinks it's being redirected to an alternative 
> source of the same resource, then it will treat it differently to if 
> it thinks it is being diverted.  A human (hopefully) can tell the 
> difference.
>
> Can't we solve this one with the solution to the problems of 301/302 
> and GET following POST?
>
> I.e. introduce a divert code, which specifically means, "you've been 
> diverted to here", rather than "you can get what you were looking for 
> here".
>
> Could use 307 for that?  e.g, clarify the intent of 307 to mean a 
> diversion rather than a detour (i.e. different destination rather than 
> different path to same destination).
>
> One more for the pot.
>
> Adrien
>
>
> Nicholas Shanks wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2007, at 14:53, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> 402 is reserved, and I think the original intent was making a 
>>> payment to the origin server, not to the folks who give you the 
>>> network to get there...
>>
>> I think 402 is the best status code here. There's nothing in RFC2616 
>> that says intermediate servers can't request payment too.
>>
>> - Nicholas.
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:51:55 GMT

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