3 ms·
They followed the standard though. They returned 200 for a resource that exists. Many responses here seem to be based on the misunderstanding that this is abou
by moring 3y ago
They followed the standard though. They returned 200 for a resource that exists.
Many responses here seem to be based on the misunderstanding that this is about "not following a standard is sometimes okay-ish", when it's actually about the fact that the standard does not rigorously define what a "resource" is and what it means for the resource to "exist", other than a circular definition based on status codes.
- cellularmitosis 3y agoServing an identical resource at all possible paths is no one's idea of following established conventions. That's what redirects are for.
- phlakaton 3y agoIs it an identical resource? How do you know? But let's say they are identical. Where in the HTTP spec does it say identical resources may not be served at different endpoints? Nowhere, of course. You talk about violating conventions and standards. The conventions are defined by the HTTP spec. The standard is the HTTP spec. Neither are, so far as I can tell, being violated here.