- From: Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:08:59 +0100
- To: "S. Mike Dierken" <mdierken@hotmail.com>
- Cc: "Justin Chapweske" <justin@chapweske.com>, "Kumar C." <kumarc@jataayusoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, <www-talk@w3.org>
"S. Mike Dierken" <mdierken@hotmail.com> writes: > I've always interpreted the HTTP as talking to a server about a resource - > the response codes come from 'the server', so 'server unavailable' means the > entire server. Why wouldn't a 40x response code be sufficient for the > availability of individual resources? > A system of "/servlet/search?query=foo" could be separated from > "/servlet/login?user=foo" via a resource specific 40x or 307 (temporary > redirect) response. I don't think that's right. A 500 (Internal Server Error) for example often applies to just one resource. In answer to the original question: I think there is a deliberate ambiguity because the distinctions can be ambiguous. HTTP does not supply informatioon about servers, it supplys information about resources identified by URLs. Of course, always under HTTP is TCP (so far anyway) so you could do something in TCP. TCP is about talking to an individual server. Refusing the TCP connection is one way of saying the a server is unavailable from a TCP point of view. Nic Ferrier
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 10:11:11 UTC