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

Re: Advice to define where new status codes can be generated

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:13:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE96101.8040902@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-06-26 02:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 25/06/2012, at 4:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-06-25 05:44, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Just a quick thought: in <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes>, we talk about guidelines for new status codes. It might be worth advising people to explicitly say whether intermediaries can generate the status code, in addition to (or instead of) the origin.
>>> Make sense?
>> Probably yes. Is there a default though?
> Probably "unspecified." Which implies "both."

I believe in dog food. So if we ask for this for the codes, we should 
state it for existing ones as well. In which case having a default would 
reduce verbosity...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:13:46 UTC

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