- From: Simpson, Grant Leyton <glsimpso@indiana.edu>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:13:00 +0000
- To: Cameron Heavon-Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- CC: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, "T.J. Crowder" <tj@crowdersoftware.com>, "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
On 3/30/11 10:02 AM, "Cameron Heavon-Jones" <cmhjones@gmail.com> wrote: >A user agent should always respond by rendering whatever content is >returned by the server as specified by the Accept header. This defines >what response the agent can handle and what the user wants to see. > >The response status is a machine code for automated agents, not user >agents. To expect a user agent (browser) to handle arbitrary response >states for a user removes the user from making their decisions based on >the information sent back from the server. Right. I agree and I'm not advocating that this would be the way to do it. I was trying to point out that even were it to be done that way, that still doesn't specify behavior at the level of the user agent's handling the HTML form. > > >In the case of an automated agent, ie a business process, the response >status is usually enough information with which to decide what action to >take. Users require a formatted response in order to inform their >decision making process. Agreed. > >As a scenario, if a user submits a form for processing and the form >contains server-vailidation errors, how else is this to be communicated >to the user other than by providing back a html response with the >original form, values and errors? It would seem that a unique request >dictates the need for a unique response. > >Even for automated agents, the need for a customised response as a result >of a failed request is desired as it is the only means of informing the >agent of the specific nature of the error. Http status codes are too >corse grained for anything other than highest-level automation. Absolutely. And that's why I don't think it's a good idea. (But I did a poor job before of expressing that.) > >cam > > >On 30/03/2011, at 2:29 PM, Simpson, Grant Leyton wrote: > >> Right, but this does still does not cover specifying how the user agent >> should respond to a HTTP 200 and how that response integrates with a >>given >> application. >> >> On 3/30/11 9:10 AM, "Dominik Tomaszuk" <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote: >> >>> It could be supported in the same way as POST: 200 OK (describing or >>> containing the result of the action). HTTP in PUT and DELETE allowed >>>200 >>> if an existing resource is modified in PUT or if it is a successful >>> response (and it is consistent with the approach RESTful). >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 14:13:35 UTC