I think we mostly addressed this on a separate thread, but to tie things up:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > > These are more questions than suggestions. > > Wondering why the required response isn't just "200" not 2xx. I think 200 is over-specified. Some frameworks may return a 201 or 202, we don't care. 2xx is good enough for a success response. Is there any reason we want to reserve the other status codes for something else? Said another way, why not 2xx? > Wondering why the hub.challenge is naked in the response body, seems > more symmetrical to send it back the same way you got it, as a > name/value pair. If it's going to be naked, why not just stick it in a > header? 1) Headers are hard to debug for simple usage (e.g., loading a URL in a browser), 2) plus headers have restrictions on the characters you can use in the challenge. Using encoded bytes is the hardest to mess up and in no way dictates the charset or its encoding (on the echo side of things). -Brett
