Re: Editorial Nit: referring to status codes

• From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
• Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:03:01 -0800 (PST)
• To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0711041302410.2207-100000@egate.xpasc.com>

+1

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> RFC2616 and the current draft are somewhat inconsistent when talking
> about certain status codes. I see:
>
> 100 (Continue)
> 100 (continue)
>
> 204 (No Content)
> 204 (no content)
>
> 206 (Partial Content)
> 206 (Partial content)
> 206 (Partial)
>
> 304 (Not Modified)
> 304 (not modified)
>
> 305 (Proxy Redirect)
> 305 (Use Proxy)
>
> 400 (Bad Request)
> 400 (bad request)
>
> 406 (Not Acceptable)
> 406 (not acceptable)
>
> 501 (Not Implemented)
> 501 (Unimplemented)
>
> I'd like to standardize on what appears in the section titles describing
> the status codes. So:
>
> 100 (Continue) <- 100 (continue)
>
> 204 (No Content) <- 204 (no content)
>
> 206 (Partial Content)  <- 206 (Partial content)
> 206 (Partial Content)  <- 206 (Partial)
>
> 304 (Not Modified) <- 304 (not modified)
>
> 305 (Proxy Redirect) <- 305 (Use Proxy)
>
> 400 (Bad Request) <- 400 (bad request)
>
> 406 (Not Acceptable) <- 406 (not acceptable)
>
> 501 (Not Implemented) <- 501 (Unimplemented)
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 21:03:19 UTC