Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status

On 12/6/11 10:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 07:29 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> A third way would be to return a 200 OK response with an extension
>>> response header or custom body that indicates which parts of the request
>>> were not "fully fulfilled".
>>> A forth way would be to include extension request headers or custom body
>>> pieces indicating client preferences with regard to considering
>>> partially fulfilled requests successful.
>> What do you mean by extension response/request headers? Are you talking
>> about RFC 2774 [1] or just some proprietary (X-)headers?
>> [1]
> Any message extension headers as defined by RFC 2616 Section 7.1.
> Whether they are [going to be] documented by some RFC, have an X-
> prefix, and/or remain application-specific is not important for this
> discussion, IMHO.

I agree that it's not important in this context.

FYI, please note that we're trying to get rid of the x- prefix...

Speaking of which, I need to ping the APPSAWG chairs about starting a
last call. :)


Peter Saint-Andre

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 16:01:30 UTC