- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:54:10 +1200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
yes, the status proposal used a header and multiple 1xx responses (last iteration was 103 I think - it's been a while). On 5/07/2011 7:41 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 07:55:01 UTC