- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:11:25 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Arnaud Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
On 2014-02-24 15:37, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * David Booth <david@dbooth.org> [2014-02-24 09:26-0500] >> On 02/24/2014 07:40 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>> = 209 Draft = >>> I have drafted a 209 proposal for Philippe to bring to IEFT London. >>> <http://localhost/2014/02/2xx/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-209> >> >> You meant this URI, right? >> http://www.w3.org/2014/02/2xx/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-209 > > yep, i do that a lot. > thanks and apologies. > ... Among other concerns, I'm worried that this proposal tries to address two very different uses cases under the same status code. If a client receives this new status code, how is it supposed to make any use of it unless it knows which of the mentioned conditions apply? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 10:12:09 UTC