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

[Daniel Chudnov]

Xiaoming Liu wrote, on Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:04:05AM -0700:
> 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.

Okay, so, I think we're converging on the same point here:  we defer
to HTTP itself, but maybe suggest a few particular codes.  Maybe the
suggestions are even non-normative, and we don't require specific response
codes for "unAPI compliance".

Does anyone want to take a stab at rewriting that final bit on HTTP codes?

  -Dan


-- 
Daniel Chudnov
Yale Center for Medical Informatics
(203) 737-5789