W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:44:00 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5334.1405601040@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <53C7C3CC.8080105@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:

>FWIW, I do support that we don't need 101, and that we might be able to 
>do 100 better.
>However, that doesn't cover other cases of 1xx. Yes, I realize that 
>there currently do not seem any, but I'm very unhappy to close an 
>existing extension point without very good reasons.

I understand your unhappiness, but invoke Gettys rules 1 & 3:

1. Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot complete
   a real application without it.

3. The only thing worse than generalizing from one example is
   generalizing from no examples at all.

I'll be happy to look at any concrete proposals if and when they
appear, but anything we define in a vacuum would be widely unimplemented
and therefore probably not work at all.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 12:44:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC