- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:13:44 +1200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
On 26/05/2010 4:12 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 25.05.2010 06:15, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >> We've made some more great progress with testing on this, which has lead >> to a fairly major change in the structure of information passed back by >> servers. >> ... > > You really really should choose a free status code; 102 has been > defined in RFC 2518. > there was discussion on the code a couple of years ago. At the time it was discussed that the existing webdav 102 status could be an appropriate code - in other words that the Progress response header could be an application for it. Personally I've no preference for the code - if you think it's justifiable to register another one for Progress, I'm happy to use a different one. Regards Adrien > Best regards, Julian > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 22:15:00 UTC