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

Re: New Version Notification for draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-00.txt

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:01:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbf02dv3SuCQ1a0-03VWRqWQyWAOh6o9G8aJKA4TPx3G3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I'd have to agree with Julian on this... there is a clear, open
registration process in place for http status codes, a single vendor
should not be allowed to hijack status codes from the shared (and
quite limited) available range. If their stuff gets broken because
someone follows the legitimate process later, then the fault is on
them. They should have known better.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-06-12 18:34, Tim Bray wrote:
>>
>> Aaaaaaaand, it turns out MNot was right; I checked with an expert, and
>> 451 is heavily used for “redirect” in the Msft ecosystem, notably
>> including HotMail’s hundreds of millions of users.  Consider it “4xx”
>> (which I would still argue for as opposed to 5xx).  -T
>> ...
>
>
> Use it anyway. People who mint new status codes and do not register them do
> not deserve anything else :-)
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 18:02:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 18:03:01 GMT