Re: New Status Code -- 2xx Greedy Hotel?

I wonder if a specific redirect code wouldn't be better.
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>





On 2007-03-15 13:48:17 +0000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:48:17 +0000
> Subject: New Status Code -- 2xx Greedy Hotel?
> List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/76F49FF4-54D7-4917-85A3-A0D648E57C7E@mnot.net
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 

> After being in hotels for a few weeks, I'm starting to wonder whether a new 2xx HTTP status 
> code could be defined whose semantic is "This isn't what you asked for, but here's some 
> information about how to get network access so you can eventually get it."

> 2xx so that browsers will display it. AFAICT, they do; or at least, Safari and Firefox do (see 
> <http://www.mnot.net/test/222.asis>). IE? 4xx might be more appropriate, but I despair of 
> "friendly" error messages. (thought they could be padded, I suppose).

> A new status code so that feed aggregators, automated clients, etc. can differentiate what they 
> asked for from your hotel / conference centre / etc. asking for cash in order to get network 
> access, and not get horribly messed up as a result.

> It would also be useful in those cases where you get redirected somewhere to login and get a 
> cookie for authentication; e.g., Yahoo!, Google, Amazon, etc. Same situation, but slightly 
> different use case.

> Thoughts?

> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:56:06 UTC