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

Fwd: Proposing Status Codes

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:21:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcDD0OxKoNnhvPcxypiBBgkkvL33bf1im9q7E1pOki2GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
My apologies... accidentally responded directly to Mark instead of the
group... Another possible approach to early implementation is to
designate a range of experimental, non-production status codes for
early development purposes that MUST NOT be used in production... once
the draft progresses to a reasonable stage (well beyond -01, the real
status can be assigned to the spec by the registrar rather than by the
spec author. I know schemes like this can tend to be problematic (e.g.
all those damn X- HTTP headers) so I'm not sure if it's a path we
should go down, but it's an idea at least.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Proposing Status Codes
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>



On 12/06/2012, at 9:55 AM, James M Snell wrote:

> Perhaps one solution is to require the registrar to assign the status code upon completion... However, with any such late assignment approach, we run the risk of blocking important, valuable early implementation.

Yeah, I thought about that, but until the registry is actually
reflecting deployment practice, I think there needs to be more
oversight. What I'd like to see is having a -00 draft with 5xx (for
example) specified, but maybe -01 (or -02, or..) going ahead and
picking one, based on community input, once it's clear that there's
real interest.



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:22:48 GMT