- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: 2012年6月26日 09:13:05 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FE96101.8040902@gmx.de>
On 2012年06月26日 02:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 25/06/2012, at 4:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012年06月25日 05:44, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Just a quick thought: in <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#considerations.for.new.status.codes>, we talk about guidelines for new status codes. It might be worth advising people to explicitly say whether intermediaries can generate the status code, in addition to (or instead of) the origin. >>> >>> Make sense? >> >> Probably yes. Is there a default though? > > > Probably "unspecified." Which implies "both." I believe in dog food. So if we ask for this for the codes, we should state it for existing ones as well. In which case having a default would reduce verbosity... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:13:46 UTC