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

RE: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:30:26 +0800
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <006701ccb488$32e6cc00$98b46400$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> For POST, this response is no different than 200 -- the client has no
> idea what semantics are provided by the service and thus cannot
> differentiate partial from complete success without the service
> telling the client what to do next (i.e., exactly what 200 does).

That's true. 


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Why is it necessary to surface this information in the status code?

I just wanted to solely rely on the 200 code when the request was
*completely* fulfilled and have a way to signal the client to also look at
the body when it was *partially fulfilled*. But having a content length of 0
in the first case would basically do the same, right?


> E.g., will intermediaries or automated software that's not specific to
> the application at hand be able to use it?

Hmm... No. You are right, indeed it has no advantage of creating a specific
response code for that as it won't tell you more about the result than a
200.

Thank you very much for the feedback


Regards


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 02:31:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT