W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Adressing more error cases ?

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:30:24 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC91DF94.A910%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello andy.

On 2012-10-03 10:56 , "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
wrote:
>I was referring to the LDP spec overall.  In response to my earlier
>comments on BPRs essentially just repeating the HTTP RFC, the comment
>was made that it avoided the need for the reader to dive into RFC 2616
>which is a good point.  Yet here, the reader does to get a full picture
>including status codes and to understand status codes requires more
>pulling of the thread of the HTTP RFC.

i think that understanding HTTP should be a prerequisite for anybody dong
anything on the web. it would be nice to properly link all status codes to
the place where they are actually defined, so that it's easy for people to
find the authority defining the codes, but i think we shouldn't try to
hide HTTP. there even is a registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml)
where people can look up the full list of registered code and where they
are registered.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 19:31:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC