3 ms·
I tried to split the difference with my April Fool's RFC, which proposes the HTTP status "397 Tolerating" for when you want to say "yeah, I know what you want,
by SilasX 4y ago
I tried to split the difference with my April Fool's RFC, which proposes the HTTP status "397 Tolerating" for when you want to say "yeah, I know what you want, and I'll give you that, but here's how you were supposed to ask for it".
https://pastebin.com/TPj9RwuZ https://pastebin.com/TPj9RwuZ
- fuckelonmusk 4y ago
- shadowgovt 4y agoI am borderline sad that this is only an RFC. The number of services I use that I wish had a "warning" side-channel for letting me know something in my query was off, let me tell you...
- slowmovintarget 4y agoThere's nothing that says you can't have system messages as a boilerplate part of response bodies, even if you don't populate it. In fact, it's the recommended way to do things like tell a client things it might need to know. Example: "The game servers will be shutting down in 15 minutes for maintenance."
- shadowgovt 4y agoTrue, but that means it has to be an ad hoc solution for every API instead of a standard.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y agoIt's not even an RFC, it's just a pastebin post pretending to be one.
- SilasX 4y agoHeh, after I posted it, a former co-worker forgot that was just an April Fool's joke and then, at his new workplace, seriously suggested handling one case by "throwing a 397".