On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:12:58PM -0600, William Rowe wrote: > 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.
No, that's the IANA's job. http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes joe
