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

RE: Status code for censorship?

From: Musatov, Martin - CW <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:10:04 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1A861E6970A91447BBC0BD2021F75320029BD04F@SN2PRD0610MB371.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:03 AM
To: James M Snell
Cc: Tim Bray; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status code for censorship?

On 2012-06-11 17:54, James M Snell wrote:
> I can definitely live with that.. anything that increases the 
> visibility of censorship is not a bad thing.  

Yes, but what incentives are there for censors to comply with its use?
Martin

Looks like status code
> 427 is open currently.
> ...

So is 418. In any case, if we go there it should be 451.

Best regards, Julian

PS: and I do agree with Mark that it's unlikely that it'll be tricky to get something standardized that might give the impression that censorship is ok.


Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 16:11:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 16:11:15 GMT