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

Editorial Nit: referring to status codes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:00:21 +0100
Message-ID: <472E16C5.8000703@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Hi,

RFC2616 and the current draft are somewhat inconsistent when talking 
about certain status codes. I see:

100 (Continue)
100 (continue)

204 (No Content)
204 (no content)

206 (Partial Content)
206 (Partial content)
206 (Partial)

304 (Not Modified)
304 (not modified)

305 (Proxy Redirect)
305 (Use Proxy)

400 (Bad Request)
400 (bad request)

406 (Not Acceptable)
406 (not acceptable)

501 (Not Implemented)
501 (Unimplemented)

I'd like to standardize on what appears in the section titles describing 
the status codes. So:

100 (Continue) <- 100 (continue)

204 (No Content) <- 204 (no content)

206 (Partial Content)  <- 206 (Partial content)
206 (Partial Content)  <- 206 (Partial)

304 (Not Modified) <- 304 (not modified)

305 (Proxy Redirect) <- 305 (Use Proxy)

400 (Bad Request) <- 400 (bad request)

406 (Not Acceptable) <- 406 (not acceptable)

501 (Not Implemented) <- 501 (Unimplemented)


Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 19:00:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT