- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:37:14 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, 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>
* Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> [2014-03-17 11:11+0100] > 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? >From HTTP's perspective, all that matters is that the person asked for X, got Y and Y is NOT a content-negotiated form of X. Whether X was a person or a prohibitively large list doesn't matter to HTTP. > Best regards, Julian -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 13:37:46 UTC