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

sorry - meant 303 not 307.


Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>
> Isn't this a symptom of the problem with the initial redirect code?
>
> If the automated client thinks it's being redirected to an alternative 
> source of the same resource, then it will treat it differently to if 
> it thinks it is being diverted.  A human (hopefully) can tell the 
> difference.
>
> Can't we solve this one with the solution to the problems of 301/302 
> and GET following POST?
>
> I.e. introduce a divert code, which specifically means, "you've been 
> diverted to here", rather than "you can get what you were looking for 
> here".
>
> Could use 307 for that?  e.g, clarify the intent of 307 to mean a 
> diversion rather than a detour (i.e. different destination rather than 
> different path to same destination).
>
> One more for the pot.
>
> Adrien
>
>
> Nicholas Shanks wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2007, at 14:53, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>
>> I think 402 is the best status code here. There's nothing in RFC2616 
>> that says intermediate servers can't request payment too.
>>
>> - Nicholas.
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:51:55 UTC