W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: http progress notification

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:28:34 +1200
Message-ID: <4BFC5D22.8000900@qbik.com>
To: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>


On 26/05/2010 10:37 a.m., Elias Sinderson wrote:
> Adrien de Croy wrote:
>> On 26/05/2010 4:12 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> You really really should choose a free status code; 102 has been 
>>> defined in RFC 2518.
>> [...] it was discussed that the existing webdav 102 status could be 
>> an appropriate code - in other words that the Progress response 
>> header could be an application for it.
>
> '102 Processing' seems like a very good fit to me (but not 102 OK / 
> Progress / Info), provided that you extend the existing definition in 
> a compatible way.
>

I was under the impression that the reason phrase wasn't interpreted as 
part of the protocol.  It would only be seen by people watching packet 
captures or debug logs.

for instance from RFC2616 s 6.1.1

para 1

The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short
    textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended
    for use by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human
    user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-
    Phrase.


and para 3

The reason phrases listed here are only
    recommendations -- they MAY be replaced by local equivalents without
    affecting the protocol.



which I read to mean you can change the text to anything you like 
without affecting the protocol.

Is this not the case?

Regards

Adrien


>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Elias
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 23:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:19 GMT