- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:38:03 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
On August 17, 2016 at 12:31:40 AM, Noah Mendelsohn (nrm@arcanedomain.com) wrote: > > 4xx is indicated to the user agent, and I think that fundamentally in web arch the user > is the ultimate curator of the content presented. > > Yes, as I acknowledged in my post, but from a protocol point of view 404 > means "doesn't exist" (Not found). If there's a real need for "Not found, > but please offer users an old version if available" I would think a new 40X > code would be the more architecturally robust way of giving the server > control. Perhaps, but that would take years to roll out - also, if it's moved, then 301 or 307 (or 200 OK, with "we trashed this page, gasp!"). If a user wants to find a 404 page, then they can manually go to a Web Archive to find the page. The Firefox extension is just helping with that step: the point is to revive the page despite (in spite of?) what the server wants - the extension and the user don't care and are in fact, directly trying to subvert the server on purpose (by design). Thus, it seems like a waste of time to work around this with new codes, when the old ones are suitable - and it would just start a small arms race against web archives and extensions that facilitate finding lost content.
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 01:38:33 UTC