W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:39:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXrPAcZbqO5vapO5ZhSzmz68Awws_krcHucsi4oghbr2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 9 June 2012 22:05, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> The thinking about returning 403 when you’re forbidden to follow a link
> seems sound to me.  This idea is superficially appealing; is it deeply
> broken in some way that’s not obvious?  -Tim

The temptation to suggest 418 is strong, but 403 is essentially
correct.  The entity making the authorization decision might not be
the usual or expected one, but that is the decision they are making.

--Martin

p.s. It is less about following the link than it is about interacting
with the resource identified by that link.
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 05:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 June 2012 05:39:49 GMT