> On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> 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. Caching might be affected, but another thing the computer might do (if it’s running a browser, for example) is inform the user that “some of the content of this page was redacted for legal reasons”. There is some suggestion in the draft for trying to work around the blockage. I don’t like technical documents suggesting things that could be illegal in some places, but whatever response (using TOR, using VPN, complaining to the government or the server admin, or protesting) is something that the user can do. The computer cannot fix the issue by itself. This is different from 410 and 404 where we don’t think the user can do much anyway. Yoav
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 07:57:37 UTC