Re: 425 (Too Early)

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 07:46:18PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think that's a reasonable argument; since the intended use triggers
> automated behaviour, we want to be conservative as possible.

Thank you :-)

> Next time we have a more informational 4xx proposed, 418 should be the
> strongly preferred option, right?

I'm fine with this.

> Cheers,
> P.S. I'm doing some work to eradicate 418 from existing implementations. :)

Great! It must first disappear from all docs all over the net :-/


Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 20:17:41 UTC