W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:41:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4E12C02D.4060306@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-07-05 01:41, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> One (of many) of the issues with 1xx responses is that people don't know how to surface two responses to one request in APIs and tools.
>
> I think we could make things a bit easier for folks if we stated that the headers in a 1xx response are semantically not significant; i.e., it's OK for APIs, etc. to drop them on the floor, because the only information is in the status code.
>
> This would mean that people shouldn't put headers on a 1xx response and expect applications to see them -- which I think is already the case today.
>
> Thoughts?
> ...

This is news to me. Where does the spec say that right now?

Note that the status code 102 defined in RFC 2518 used the "status-uri" 
header code, and I believe something similar was proposed for the 
"progress" status code discussed over here not so long ago.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 07:42:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:44 GMT