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

Re: Proposing Status Codes

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcXW4vO4fQfjY_y9iGOLkeQRZgWQQfyznYD_NFE5mrA2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
+1 for picking it post -02.
On Jun 11, 2012 5:46 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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 00:53:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:53:16 GMT