- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:53:37 +0000
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hmm, 3xx doesn't seem right; there might be temporary redirects along the way (indeed, most of these sorts of things already use them); it's the status code of the place where you end up that's interesting. 5xx implies server-side error, so that's not appropriate (unless you consider their requirement for money an error!) 402 is reserved, and I think the original intent was making a payment to the origin server, not to the folks who give you the network to get there... On 15/03/2007, at 2:47 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > Sounds more like a 3xx, perhaps even 303? > > The hard part is getting these proxies to support it, of course. > > Mark. > > On 3/15/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> 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/ >> >> >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:53:56 UTC