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

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


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

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


Added to the beginning of Section 5:

"""While specific HTTP status codes are shown in the interaction
 diagrams below, an APP client should be prepared to handle any
 status code. For example, a PUT to a Member URI could result in
 the return of a "204 No Content" status code, which still indicates
 success.
"""

  -joe

--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org