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

Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:14 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AC55EA5E-F1BE-4877-A5DD-0E7B88372F14@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Oct 21, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Like I said, I'm not necessarily against 3xx.
> 
> I'm a *bit* concerned that we've had a fair amount of attention on the latest draft, and there's a certain amount of momentum as a result.
> 
> If there's a tangible benefit to switching, that's great; however, it *looks* like there are arguments / reasons for all of the status codes (we started at 4xx, now 5xx, next 3xx? Perhaps we should consider 1xx too? ;)  So, all else equal, I'd rather just leave it as-is. 
> 
> In any case, if we are going to change, it should be done soon.

Yep... any chance you could add a few pages to redbot that responds
using different statuses, so we can see which pukes less on browsers?
I'd do it locally but am strapped for time at the moment.

....Roy
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 01:53:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:48 GMT