- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:41:33 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-07-05 01:41, Mark Nottingham wrote: > One (of many) of the issues with 1xx responses is that people don't know how to surface two responses to one request in APIs and tools. > > I think we could make things a bit easier for folks if we stated that the headers in a 1xx response are semantically not significant; i.e., it's OK for APIs, etc. to drop them on the floor, because the only information is in the status code. > > This would mean that people shouldn't put headers on a 1xx response and expect applications to see them -- which I think is already the case today. > > Thoughts? > ... This is news to me. Where does the spec say that right now? Note that the status code 102 defined in RFC 2518 used the "status-uri" header code, and I believe something similar was proposed for the "progress" status code discussed over here not so long ago. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 07:42:02 UTC