- From: Musatov, Martin - CW <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:10:04 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:03 AM To: James M Snell Cc: Tim Bray; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Status code for censorship? On 2012-06-11 17:54, James M Snell wrote: > I can definitely live with that.. anything that increases the > visibility of censorship is not a bad thing. Yes, but what incentives are there for censors to comply with its use? Martin Looks like status code > 427 is open currently. > ... So is 418. In any case, if we go there it should be 451. Best regards, Julian PS: and I do agree with Mark that it's unlikely that it'll be tricky to get something standardized that might give the impression that censorship is ok.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 16:11:08 UTC