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

Re: Advice to define where new status codes can be generated

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:14:19 +1000
Message-Id: <34DCB4AC-F268-4B0B-82A1-DF82127424F5@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
That's what I was thinking. Will start a proposal. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 26/06/2012, at 5:13 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2012-06-26 02:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>> On 25/06/2012, at 4:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2012-06-25 05:44, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Just a quick thought: in <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes>, we talk about guidelines for new status codes. It might be worth advising people to explicitly say whether intermediaries can generate the status code, in addition to (or instead of) the origin.
>>>> 
>>>> Make sense?
>>> 
>>> Probably yes. Is there a default though?
>> 
>> 
>> Probably "unspecified." Which implies "both."
> 
> I believe in dog food. So if we ask for this for the codes, we should state it for existing ones as well. In which case having a default would reduce verbosity...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:14:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:14:58 GMT