[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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




On May 17, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

On 5/17/07, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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

We give exact error codes in every example in Section 5,
of which 'delete' is the very last example. How about we
say something at the beginning of Section 5, that while the
examples give exact status codes, clients should be prepared
for any status code?

That'd do it. A specific for-example, such as "204 on PUT" or "202 on DELETE" or anything else you can think of might be useful to help crystallize it in people's minds. -Tim