Re: More comments on pre-draft (as of 2007-05-17)

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

On May 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> > Section 5.4.2., para. 3:
> > OLD:
> >
> >     2.  If the deletion is successful the server responds with a  
> > status
> >         code of 200.
> >
> > JRE: are we sufficiently clear that this may be another 2xx  
> > status, such
> > as 204, as well?
>
> From Section 4.4:
>
> """Similarly while some HTTP status codes are
>    mentioned explicitly, clients ought to be
>    prepared to handle any status code from a server.
> """

Joe, I'm with you on the rest, but speaking as an implementor on whom  
it hadn't dawned that perhaps I should be OK with 204, I think a  
couple of words in this particular subject might be cost-effective.   
Not strictly necessary, agreed, but a usability plus. -Tim