4 ms·

It is correct for a request for a page named "error" to result in a 200 OK status meaning that the page named "error" was successfully retrieved. It would not

by Hello71 14y ago

It is correct for a request for a page named "error" to result in a 200 OK status meaning that the page named "error" was successfully retrieved. It would not be correct for a request for a page named "error" to return 404 Not Found if the page named "error" was retrieved successfully. It would also not be correct for a request for a page that does not exist to return the page named "error" with a 200 OK status.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
1) This page in no way is related to page missing (404). My response that it is not a 404 page is correct. This page has nothing to do with 404 error. 2) I made an assumption, based on the context, that this page was serving a role that is used when the server is overloaded or otherwise unavailable. In that case, this page should not be serving a 200 status, it should be serving a 50X response. Now, it's possible that this page is just a demonstration of the error that would normally be produced when the website is unavailable. In that case, sure, 200 status is proper since it's not meant to actually be the literal error page which is served when the site has gone down. It's also possible the page has logic in it to serve 200 error when requested directly and 50X when the server is down. In really, I bet this page is served as-is when the website is unavailable and sends a 200 error. It's difficult to know whether or not this is true until we see a real problem with the server.
- estel 14y ago
  It's probably technically incorrect, but the page title is "404 Doodoo error".
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    Didn't notice the title. That page is all over the place. The discussion the two characters were having was something like "Don't worry, the page will come back soon." Meaning, it's just a temporary error. It's a fun page but horribly executed. The customer has no idea what's actually happening. Is this a server problem or is the page actually missing?

by Hello71 14y ago

MichaelApproved 14y ago

1) This page in no way is related to page missing (404). My response that it is not a 404 page is correct. This page has nothing to do with 404 error. 2) I made an assumption, based on the context, that this page was serving a role that is used when the server is overloaded or otherwise unavailable. In that case, this page should not be serving a 200 status, it should be serving a 50X response. Now, it's possible that this page is just a demonstration of the error that would normally be produced when the website is unavailable. In that case, sure, 200 status is proper since it's not meant to actually be the literal error page which is served when the site has gone down. It's also possible the page has logic in it to serve 200 error when requested directly and 50X when the server is down. In really, I bet this page is served as-is when the website is unavailable and sends a 200 error. It's difficult to know whether or not this is true until we see a real problem with the server.

estel 14y ago
It's probably technically incorrect, but the page title is "404 Doodoo error".
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Didn't notice the title. That page is all over the place. The discussion the two characters were having was something like "Don't worry, the page will come back soon." Meaning, it's just a temporary error. It's a fun page but horribly executed. The customer has no idea what's actually happening. Is this a server problem or is the page actually missing?