3 ms·
This is formalizing existing practice, not introducing a new concept. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#420 https://en.wikipedia.org/
by thewakalix 3y ago
This is formalizing existing practice, not introducing a new concept.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#420 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#420
- gary_0 3y agoBoth of the uses in the article seem to be deprecated, though, and not used to imply "impairment". Kind of a dumb joke. What's next, "HTTP 69: Loop Detected Between Input And Output"?
- lstodd 3y ago609 while we're at it. Why exclude third parties? And yes, that would be way more useful.
- rablackburn 3y ago> And yes, that would be way more useful. ...that sounds like an example use case for the proposed status code. 420: Requester Impaired - Infinite loop It would allow you to signal to the requester that while their individual responses are fine, their session behavior is incoherent.
- rablackburn 3y agoWhich explains why it's a playful name - the old Internet culture still shows up. And let's be honest, it's a great name when the lowest free options are 419 or 420. Some may roll their eyes at it, but it would certainly be a memorable status code.