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

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:54:10 +1200
Message-ID: <4E12C322.6060109@qbik.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

yes, the status proposal used a header and multiple 1xx responses (last 
iteration was 103 I think - it's been a while).


On 5/07/2011 7:41 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 07:55:01 GMT

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