- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:40:17 +0200
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2008, at 13:55, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> ... >>> I think it would be better if HTTP defined what clients should assume >>> (200 and OK most likely) in case the response data does not include >>> it. Your HTTP parsing specification could do this for instance. >>> ... >> >> In HTTP/1.*, the status code is what the response says, and the status >> text is purely decorative. If it's not there, it's not there. Claiming >> it was "OK" would be misleading. > > Still, throwing INVALID_STATUS_ERR seems to defy logic, and current > implementations. The error should be treated like any other network error. >> WRT earlier HTTP versions: how would care? > > s/how/who/, I assume? Yes. > There's still (amazingly) a number of servers that do still have > HTTP/0.9 behaviour, and support _is_ still needed. The behaviour > everywhere, as far as I can tell, it to just return 200/OK. Really? Evidence please? And are there use cases for accessing thise using XHR? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:41:00 UTC