- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:56:47 +0200
- To: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
tis 2010-05-25 klockan 15:37 -0700 skrev Elias Sinderson: > '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. Does it? The concept of the two is similar, but: The definition of 102 have another header attached which this proposal do not use at all. the definition of 102 Processing is based on being authorative by the origin server with wordings such as " has accepted the complete request, but has not yet completed it". Both clauses there may be invalid in this proposal as the progress indication is not necessarily related at all to the server as such, in fact most times not at all.. Regards Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 17:57:44 UTC