- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:30:21 +1100
- To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Cc: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One quick comment - On 31/01/2009, at 5:33 AM, Robert Brewer wrote: > > I think I'd still prefer the more-specific "405" in most cases to > the catch-all "404". But I can see how 404 is a valid response, and > might be preferred for maximizing interop with clients, some of > which may not gracefully deal with 405. There's a very fine (sometimes invisible) line between accommodating the realities of implementation (i.e., making things work), and dumbing down the protocol to the lowest common denominator. Trying to anticipate where clients *may* not handle something correctly errs too far on the side of the latter, I think. Without hard and compelling evidence, I'd be inclined to go with your preference. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 23:31:02 UTC