W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2014

RE: 409 status code

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:00:28 -0000
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <141f01cf491d$45efb3d0$d1cf1b70$@baycloud.com>

The TPE just talks about HTTP requests, which could have any method. I think
we assumed that OPTIONS could have DNT at least so why not PUTs. All I am
saying is avoid the confusion now by simply making the TPE have its own
status code. Alternatively we could spell out what methods the header is
relevant in, but that would be too much now.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: 26 March 2014 17:37
> To: Mike O'Neill
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding; public-tracking@w3.org; Adrian Bateman
> Subject: Re: 409 status code
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 10:16 , Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thought of an interoperability problem with the 409. If script on a page
> (accessed with DNT set) does a PUT update against an Azure storage blob
> (assuming it supports CORS), a 409 SC might be taken by the UA or add-on
as a
> third-party rejection of DNT.
> >
> > Mike
> well, I think you have to understand the 409 in context.  In a put without
> header, it probably doesn’t relate to DNT.  In a GET that doesn’t involve
Azure, it
> probably doesn’t relate to Azure.
> Would one include a DNT header in methods other than GET?  Are we clear
> about for which HTTP methods DNT is appropriately signalled?
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 18:01:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:08 UTC