4 ms·
Please no. On the one hand you have a reasonable request, well-argued and politely-put by a respected engineer, who is long-standing contributor to the IETF an
by philbo 9y ago
Please no.
On the one hand you have a reasonable request, well-argued and politely-put by a respected engineer, who is long-standing contributor to the IETF and W3C. On the other hand you have a student who thinks 418 is fun.
- monsieurbanana 9y agoDid you read the github issues? There were hundreds of people against it. Many voiced their refusals, they were also well-argued and politely put. On another note, isn't it important to have students think HTTP is fun?
- philbo 9y ago> There were hundreds of people against it. Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with arbitrary commenters on GitHub. > Many voiced their refusals, they were also well-argued and politely put. I read the comments on the node and requests issues and didn't see anything well-argued. Nothing said there refutes the substance of the request. Saying "but it doesn't do any harm" and then speculating about how the IETF should do things instead is not a coherent argument. > On another note, isn't it important to have students think HTTP is fun? Genuinely, it isn't.
- unimpressive 9y ago>Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with arbitrary commenters on GitHub. The (frankly shallow) technical merit is that it gives us one less status code, in a problem space where if you really need that specific last status code so much that it's worth undoing a small piece of nearly 20 year old Internet culture to get it, the solution isn't to take that status code it's to switch the way you represent status codes entirely. I would make some comparison to scrounging for IPv4 blocks instead of switching to IPv6, but the growth rate of computers on the Internet and HTTP status codes aren't really comparable.
- zaxomi 9y agoOnly about 1/3 of the available codes in 4xx is currently used, so there is still plenty of space left.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vertex-four 9y agoThe technical merits of the argument are... "we'll have to number our new error code 419, and that's bad because reasons".
- erdeszt 9y ago> because reasons Consistency comes to mind as a pretty good reason.
- vertex-four 9y agoThere's already a number of gaps in the error code space, so consistency doesn't actually seem a good reason.
- ucho 9y ago> Did you read the github issues? There were hundreds of people against it. Every time github issue goes viral it ends with hundreds of useless comments full of animated gifs. That is not an argument for anything.