httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r111386 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES /httpd/httpd/trunk/include/httpd.h /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c
Date Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:12:58 GMT
At 10:46 AM 12/9/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:26 AM -0500 Geoffrey Young <geoff@modperlcookbook.org>
wrote:
>
>>well, I guess it depends on whether the goal is to help (for some definition
>>of help) support official HTTP variants (if indeed that's what 3229 is), or
>>just for things we actually take the time to implement fully.
>
>I think it only makes sense for us to have the status lines for the things we actually
implement.  I'm not going to veto it, but just that I think it's foolish for us to add status
lines for the goofy 'variants' of HTTP that we'll never support.  IETF's stamp of approval
means little as they've produced their fair share of crappy RFCs trying to hop on the HTTP
bandwagon.  -- justin

We are obviously a very strong reference implementation.  Once
a response identifier is defined by an RFC - it's in everyone's
interest to document that a given response code is now reserved
with a particular purpose.

Please - do retain this in our table of codes.

Bill


Mime
View raw message