- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:16:50 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 12 Jun 2008, at 13:55, Julian Reschke wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> ... >> I think it would be better if HTTP defined what clients should >> assume (200 and OK most likely) in case the response data does not >> include it. Your HTTP parsing specification could do this for >> instance. >> ... > > In HTTP/1.*, the status code is what the response says, and the > status text is purely decorative. If it's not there, it's not there. > Claiming it was "OK" would be misleading. Still, throwing INVALID_STATUS_ERR seems to defy logic, and current implementations. > WRT earlier HTTP versions: how would care? s/how/who/, I assume? There's still (amazingly) a number of servers that do still have HTTP/ 0.9 behaviour, and support _is_ still needed. The behaviour everywhere, as far as I can tell, it to just return 200/OK. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 19:17:30 UTC