On 05/25/2007 01:55 AM, Webmaster wrote:
> > Actually if you compare the RFC spec to the list on the wiki, you will > notice the wiki contains a lot more Status Codes than the spec. I admit > that this information may be totally boring and pointless for 99.999% of > people, but this is fascinating to me and I think it would be a shame to > delete the most complete list of HTTP Status Codes anywhere on the net. The > link is to the RFC because if someone wants to learn more information they > can go there. The RFC is too long for the wiki and THAT would be redundant. > Likewise the article I linked to > http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/apache-status-code-headers-errordocument.h > tml and the other article I linked to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes also contain > additional information. Especially my article, which is the only published > reference of the actual headers and data sent by apache for all 57 HTTP > Status Codes. How many does the RFC talk about? 40? So I guess I am RFC2616 talks about 41, where one of them is reserved, but not used (306). There are only 50 in total and not 57 because there are gaps. The remaining 9: 426 belongs to RFC2817 (1) 102, 207, 422, 423, 424, 507 belong to RFC2518 (6) 506 belongs to RFC2295 (1) 510 belongs to RFC2774 (1) So I guess it would make sense to have links to all five RFC's above. Regards Rüdiger --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
