OK, Lauren Weinstein also agrees with you: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/RKMHCtYpaeV So I went back and pushed back on my mail expert (guy who does mail/Exchange dev on Android), saying “problem in practice or just in theory?” and he wrote “I agree that in practice it wouldn't likely be an issue. I guess I'm using an abundance of caution criterion.” So maybe 451 is still plausible. -T On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd have to agree with Julian on this... there is a clear, open > registration process in place for http status codes, a single vendor > should not be allowed to hijack status codes from the shared (and > quite limited) available range. If their stuff gets broken because > someone follows the legitimate process later, then the fault is on > them. They should have known better. > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > wrote: > > On 2012-06-12 18:34, Tim Bray wrote: > >> > >> Aaaaaaaand, it turns out MNot was right; I checked with an expert, and > >> 451 is heavily used for “redirect” in the Msft ecosystem, notably > >> including HotMail’s hundreds of millions of users. Consider it “4xx” > >> (which I would still argue for as opposed to 5xx). -T > >> ... > > > > > > Use it anyway. People who mint new status codes and do not register them > do > > not deserve anything else :-) > > > > Best regards, Julian > > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 03:29:27 UTC