- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ons 2009-08-05 klockan 15:49 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Tracking in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/187>
>>
>> We have discussed this face-to-face last week, and I think there was
>> agreement that RFC 2047 in Warning headers is not implemented anywhere,
>> and thus we should remove it from the spec.
>
> Not implemented anywhere, and further that if useragents actually start
> displaying the warnings then they will most likely display their own
> explanations in the users locale based on the error number, with the
> error message more of a diagnostic message on the same level as the
> reason phrase in the status line.
>
>
>> The warn-text SHOULD be in a natural language that is most likely to
>> be intelligible to the human user receiving the response. This
>> decision can be based on any available knowledge, such as the
>> location of the cache or user, the Accept-Language field in a
>> request, the Content-Language field in a response, etc. The default
>> language is English.
>
> I would even go as far as drop the language reference, using text
> similar to what we have for Reason-Phrase:
>
> The warn-text is intended to give a short textual description of
> the warn-code. The warn-code is intended for use by automata and
> the warn-text is intended for the human user. The client is not
> required to examine the warn-text.
>
I agree, warnings are more useful for machines than humans in any case,
and it is far better to leave the explanation of the return code to the UI
instead of hammering something useful in a few characters.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 17:19:25 UTC