Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:55:45PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So, do you support the proposal I made?
> 
> Note that this doesn't preclude minting a new status code if that's the right thing to do.

If you're talking about this :

> I think the 400 definition needs to be broadened, so that people don't invent their own status codes, or misuse existing ones.

Then yes I do support it. What I'm not in favor of is the use of the 503 that
was suggested on the openstack discussion -for this specific use- (and like
you, I too think that 403 was much closer to the need than 413).

Cheers,
Willy

Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 14:06:04 UTC