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

Re: Proposing Status Codes

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:44:41 +1000
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A0ADB852-8212-4174-B473-3D383F21800A@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
On 12/06/2012, at 10:28 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:

> On 12.06.2012 12:21, James M Snell wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> You mean 490-499 for a 4XX exeprimental status?
> Or completely out of the way range like 700-799? with requirement that once RFCs exist the experiments be dropped.

I think that managing that changeover would be very tricky.

However we do this, it's not going to be perfect; I just want to avoid the more experimental / tentative proposals from consuming codes (especially since they sometimes sit for a while).

E.g., a -00 draft would use "4xx", and maybe through -01, -02, but once it was clear it has momentum, and people want to start implementing, *then* you choose a code.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:45:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:45:18 GMT