On 21.09.2010 11:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:53:39 +0200, Julian Reschke
<[email protected]> wrote:
How do you know now that 234 will not make sense in two years from now?

Common sense. But apart from that it seems saner to just operate from a
whitelist here. We only need one response code for the protocol to work
-- 200 -- why make it unbounded?

To address use case we currently don't know of. Remember, "extensibility".

Best regards, Julian

Reply via email to