- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:09:27 +1000
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 11/06/2012, at 8:54 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > For me the main argument against its implementability is that: > > Le 10 juin 2012 à 19:20, Mark Nottingham a écrit : >> However, it'd need to get deployed. Since the primary objective of such a status code seems to be to raise the visibility of censorship, thereby (presumably) causing some reaction against it, it seems unlikely that it'll happen in places where there's strong oversight of whoever is deploying it. > > > That said, I guess, and without malice, that Mark had in mind a state like China, Iran, etc. On the contrary; those in charge have rewired my head so that I'm unable to form any such thoughts about specific state actors, companies, implementers or other parties that may take slight. It's somewhat liberating, but makes reading the Saturday paper a bit problematic. > Censorship happens sometimes in other states through decision of laws and/or regulations. For example, a network in a corporate environment blocking certain sites through proxy (such as social networks). A library blocking some sites through proxy to other users. In these cases, the organization in charge of it might want to advertise it for reasons which seem perfectly legible to them. Yes. However, as discussed, current status codes can be used for this, and the HTML will explain what's going on. The one remaining motivation that I can see would be a similar situation that got us 511; non-browser devices that get confused by what's going on. However, since this isn't a redirect, but just a refusal, it's less of an issue, practically. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 11:10:09 UTC