- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:58:00 +0200
- To: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
- CC: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
On 26.05.2010 00:37, Elias Sinderson wrote: > Adrien de Croy wrote: >> On 26/05/2010 4:12 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: >>> You really really should choose a free status code; 102 has been >>> defined in RFC 2518. >> [...] 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. > > '102 Processing' seems like a very good fit to me (but not 102 OK / > Progress / Info), provided that you extend the existing definition in a > compatible way. That's the important part: if you can make it an extension, go ahead (but take over the definition in the IANA registry), otherwise pick a new one. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 06:59:47 UTC