On 7/5/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
>> 2. Upon a successful update of the resource the server
>> responds with
>> a status code of 200.
>>
>> Would not a 204 No Content be appropriate as well given that we're
>> not
>> requiring or recommending the update to return a response?
>
> Agreed.
-1
I would be irritated at a server that did this. If there's no bloody
response I can bloody tell there's no bloody response, why does the
server have to tell me again? The existing language "responds with a
status code of 200" is simple and unambiguous and clear and
implementor-friendly; why fuzzify it? -Tim
A server can return a 401, a 301, etc. There are lots of perfectly useful
HTTP status codes a server could return, the spec text gives the impression
that only a 200 is acceptable, but that's not true and the wording
needs to be fixed to avoid that misperception.
-joe
--
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
