- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:14:28 +0100
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-12-18 08:06, Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 12/18/14, 6:56 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >> Uh, 410: “The requested resource is no longer available at the server >> and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be >> considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD >> delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the >> server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not >> the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be >> used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.” >> >> Are you seriously suggesting that 410 is appropriate? I’m trying not >> to find this suggestion offensive, but having difficulty. >> > > I'm asking: how would a computer handle that case differently than 451? > > That is all. And yes, the answer to that question should be in the draft. > > Eliot For once, a 451 condition isn't permanent; it could depend on factors like network configuration, client's geolocation or IP, local politics that can change. As such, what's more relevant would be the difference to 404. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 07:15:13 UTC