W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?

From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:43:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE3F37B.9040905@gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Status code 203 is more appropriate for the GET method while 214 is more 
appropriate for the POST, PUT, and DELETE methods.

If there are several POST, PUT, and DELETE operations on the queue that 
expect the same definitive set of headers, 214 could indicate the simple 
merge of each query was made into multi-part mime format (i.e. where 
content-type now indicates the method) instead of individual 
connections/queries. 214 status can include GET in the same way, yet I 
think of the 203 status as an optimization in strict queries that simply 
convey "there is no know cause why anything changed about the original 

On 05/30/2011 11:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On May 29, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Hmm. I see that we have warn code 214, "Transformation applied," which makes me wonder about the relationship (whether or not we go with the proposal below).
> The 203 status was defined in 1993 (IIRC) and later implemented in proxies like
> Commentor (IIRC).  I don't know if anything depends on it today, but it is
> known and usable by Apache httpd.
> Warnings were added in 1996 and, AFAIK, only implemented for the purpose of
> server-side RFC compliance.  Apache httpd's mod_filter adds it while filtering
> content as a proxy (it does not set 203 because it can filter error content,
> though I could change that if some other checks in the code are fixed).
> I do not know of any clients that check for either one, since there isn't
> much they can do about it.
> ....Roy

--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 19:45:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:52 UTC