- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:04:44 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On 21.09.2010 11:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:53:39 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> How do you know now that 234 will not make sense in two years from now? > > Common sense. But apart from that it seems saner to just operate from a > whitelist here. We only need one response code for the protocol to work > -- 200 -- why make it unbounded? To address use case we currently don't know of. Remember, "extensibility". Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 10:05:26 UTC