W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [XHR] (Late) LC Comments

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:16:50 +0100
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <5DACDAB7-3C8A-454C-909D-BD282A4C9098@googlemail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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  

> 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
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 19:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:09 UTC