W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Issue 164, was: Statuscodes

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@innoq.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905080938031.19446@egate.xpasc.com>


On Fri, 8 May 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Stefan Tilkov wrote:
>> Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, but
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06#section-8 
>> says
>> "Each Status-Code is described below, _including a description of which
>> method(s)_ it can follow and any metainformation required in the response."
>> but doesn't actually name the methods.
>> ...
>
> Wishful thinking, I guess :-)
>
> See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/164>.
>
> That being said, it's not clear to me that this is even feasible or a good 
> idea.

Seems like you can fix this by removing the "_including ... methods(s)_"
phrase. Or saying 'examples of'. I think the right place for any 
information correlating status codes with methods in a normative was is
with the method description, not the status code.
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 16:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT