W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:10:18 +1000
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <9D288E61-3E16-45FD-B259-46DBBC888856@mnot.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

On 12/06/2012, at 1:27 AM, James M Snell wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 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.
> True, however, with 511, there is a distinct practical action that the
> user-agent can take in response to the specific code... namely,
> authenticating with the network prior to retrying the request. There
> is no such clear response action with this.

That's pretty much what I was saying. Refusal doesn't have a follow-on action.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 20:10:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC