At 10:46 AM 12/9/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >--On Thursday, December 9, 2004 11:26 AM -0500 Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> 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
