- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:34:19 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Promoting to a new thread, as suggested. I explored the thinking behind this in a blog post a while back: https://www.mnot.net/blog/2017/05/11/status_codes Julian, do you disagree with that, or just how it's expressed here? > On 8 Jan 2019, at 8:31 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2019-01-08 10:11, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >>>>> It talks about status codes in general; that includes new ones, no? >>>> Potentially, but new status codes are required to be generic, not application-specific, so it ends up in the same place. Status codes are *not* a guaranteed end-to-end signal; they can (and often are) superseded by HTTP components in the middle. >>> >>> Under certain well-understood circumstances, by design, or when there is a bug. My point is that they usually are reliable when the actual origin servers gets to respond. >> Well-understood by implementers, perhaps, but often not application designers. >>> I'm concerned that the current text will cause people to stuff all information into header fields or the payload, and just send 400. >> Yes. Unless you want to intentionally trigger generic HTTP processing based upon a chosen status code, that's best practice. >> ... > > This is really news to me. This probably requires a new top-level thread. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2019 05:34:49 UTC