3 ms·
I would have used the Mozilla docs as a more official reference. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/d
by hk1337 4y ago
I would have used the Mozilla docs as a more official reference.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status
You want to bring up pollution, what about the plethora of http status reference sites we already have. At least OP kept it to CLI. It’d be nice if it sourced it from Mozilla so it wouldn’t need updating.
- bmn__ 4y agoThe recommendation does not hold up when scrutinised. MDN is also third-party, thus equally unofficial. The official sources are IANA and IETF. The quality is objectively worse compared with webconcepts. It's not immediately visible where a status code originates from, and when you follow through to the detail document, you can see that the outdated RFC 2616 is referenced.
- hk1337 4y agoMore official than hosted by some rando on GitHub pages with a .info domain.
- bmn__ 4y agoThe "rando" is a long term contributor to Web specifications. The choice of top-level domain has zero significance, as I said previously, the only measure of official(?:ness|ity) is where the information originates from.