- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:51:21 -0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 18:51:51 UTC
Quite honestly, while 403 would probably work just fine, I think a dedicated status code in the 5xx range would make for a better approach, if only from an informational point of view. HTTP/1.1 512 Service Blocked Sends a very clear message and makes the fact that the service is being censored, as opposed to merely being technically unavailable, quite clear. On Jun 9, 2012 10:09 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > Check out > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/1927246/an-http-status-code-for-censorship > > The thinking about returning 403 when you’re forbidden to follow a link > seems sound to me. This idea is superficially appealing; is it deeply > broken in some way that’s not obvious? -Tim >
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 18:51:51 UTC