Re: RFC6585+HTTP/2.0 := 101

Jonathan / Dzonatas,

This is off-topic for this working group.

You've been warned privately on several occasions. Consider this a public warning, as per BCP94. If you continue to disrupt the work, your posting privileges will be suspended.



On 27/07/2012, at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com> wrote:

> In Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 (page ~2)
> 
> I looked at this RFC as if I wanted to derive it into the revision for 2.0:
> 
> """
>    HTTP/1.1 428 Precondition Required
>    Content-Type: text/html
> 
>    <html>
>       <head>
>          <title>Precondition Required</title>
>       </head>
>       <body>
>          <h1>Precondition Required</h1>
>          <p>This request is required to be conditional;
>          try using "If-Match".</p>
>       </body>
>    </html>
> 
> """
> 
> (instead of from scratch)
> 
> """
>    HTTP/2.0 428 Precondition Required
> 
>  <head id=428>
>        Date: <time>&xhtml.now;</time>
>        <meta>
> 
>          Content-Type: text/html+xml
> 
>          Title: Precondition Required
>        </meta>
>  </head>
> 
>  <body itemscope itemtype="urn:http:status">
>        <h1  itemprop=name>Precondition Required</h1>
>        <p   itemprop=description>This request is required
> 
>                                  to be conditional;
>                                  try using "If-Match".</p>
> 
>        <img itemprop=image />
> 
>        <a   itemprop=url />
>  </body>
> 
> """
> 
> I exhausted myself, today, over the idea of the calendar application integration with blogger. What I had on mind was how do we describe: POST /.well-known/509 HTTP/2.0, especially for cloud-containers that do not have nested directories. This is how far I got. I figured GET /.well-known/428 HTTP/2.0 would display the above.
> 
> 
> Enjoy the  Olympics...
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 05:54:22 UTC