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

Re: Status Line Syntax production/parsing

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqHsB1rBJXMdMbqX3_KMi220Fu4tOT7aB8isiWNLg1ZtKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It's too late to change the syntax now. For interoperability it's
better to not produce any empty reason phrase. A status line

    HTTP/1.1 200

probably looks suspicious to most people.


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (a naive question)
> The syntax for the status-line of an HTTP response message is
>
>     status-line = HTTP-version SP status-code SP reason-phrase CRLF
>      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-20#section-3.1.2
>
> Then about the reason-phrase
>
>    The reason-phrase element exists for the sole purpose of providing a
>    textual description associated with the numeric status code, mostly
>    out of deference to earlier Internet application protocols that were
>    more frequently used with interactive text clients.  A client SHOULD
>    ignore the reason-phrase content.
>
>      reason-phrase  = *( HTAB / SP / VCHAR / obs-text )
>
>
> I was wondering if there are any issues with status-line of the form:
>
>     status-line = HTTP-version SP status-code SP
>
> OR
>
>     status-line = HTTP-version SP status-code
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations, Opera Software
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 20:02:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 August 2012 20:02:45 GMT