> There is no useful distinction between different kindes of bad requests (syntactically wrong, structurally wrong, not applicable to the data found, etc.) Tha

> There is no useful distinction between different kindes of bad requests (syntactically wrong, structurally wrong, not applicable to the data found, etc.) That's false. The distinction is cromulently expressed by obeying the relevant RFC 9110 § 15.5.1. and 15.5.21. Further detail can be described as shown in RFC 7807 § 4. > The error codes confuse authentication and authorization It's not only the status codes. Like the misspelling of "referrer", this is legacy crap that cannot be changed to due backward compatibility. > Special handling is needed to test if a resource exists -- you cannot just GET it and check for a 404 code because browsers log all 404 as errors, even if it's the "happy path" That's analogue to "the whole world's a VAX" chestnut. Does existence of RFC ignorant software mean that we must penalise the other software that implements correctly? I think that would be a bad affair to be in. I refuse to make myself complicit in this. > RPC is underrated because there have been horrible RPC monstrosities in the past That's a misunderstanding of the argument in TFA. RPC on the Web is bad because the design is fundamentally worse, not a particular implementation.