[gcs-pcs-list] (possible) issue: what to do for redirects?

[Xiaoming Liu]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Mike Rylander wrote:

>>
>
> Like I said, I think this is the spirit of what we're doing today.
> Here in the early stages of protocol and format development, however,
> I think it's a good idea to help server admins and implementers pick
> the best code for a particular situation.  It may not be difficult for
> someone with lots of server side development experience to pick status
> codes that make sense (though it's obviously not trivial -- the HTTP
> spec is (necessarily) vague), but it certainly wouldn't hurt to give
> the "noobs" a helping hand in interpreting the HTTP status code spec.
> If we find that the "recommended status codes" list is indeed bloating
> the spec at some point, then I think it should be spun off into an
> auxiliary "best practices" document.  But for the time being, having

Thanks for catching key point for me. It's really about whether these 
status code are recommendation/best practice, or mandatory. I am much 
comfortable if we put them as recommendation, therefore not part of 
compliance check.

I also agree HTTP spec is (necessarily) vague, and kind of thinking  many 
of these error codes are designed for human reading. Considering these 
factors, human readability perhaps outweight machine readability.

xiaoming


> the knowledge of the "right" way to apply status codes right there at
> the bottom of the spec makes creating new implementations easier, and
> IMO encourages those new implementations to be more accessible to
> existing clients, since these new servers will fail in the same way as
> existing servers.
>
>> xiaoming
>>
>
> --
> Mike Rylander
> mrylander at gmail.com
> GPLS -- PINES Development
> Database Developer
> http://open-ils.org
>