- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:09:55 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ok. What about noting its implementation status? We've done that in a few other places, where people might be surprised by lack of support for a feature. On 30/04/2013, at 3:14 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > The most common use of 205 is within custom HTTP systems, not browsers. > We could only do harm by deprecating it. > > ....Roy > > On Apr 28, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> p2 defines this status code: >> >>> The 205 (Reset Content) status code indicates that the server has fulfilled the request and desires that the user agent reset the "document view", which caused the request to be sent, to its original state as received from the origin server. >> >> but AIUI it isn't implemented in any browser. See: >> http://benramsey.com/blog/2008/05/http-status-204-no-content-and-205-reset-content/ >> >> While it might have uses outside of browsers, the identified use case *is* data entry, which screams "browser" (at least to me). >> >> AFAICT it was first proposed here: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1995MayAug/0575.html >> and resolutely failed to catch on. >> >> This being the case, should we consider noting its lack of implementation support, or even deprecating it (as we did for 305, which showed a similar lack of interest/deployment)? >> >> Cheers, >> >> P.S. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this; if people have strong feelings against both noting lack of support and deprecating it, just say so and I'm happy to drop it. OTOH if you think it's a good idea, say so and it'll help us make a decision more quickly. >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 02:10:21 UTC