- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:39:23 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 Jun 2014, at 7:20 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-06-27 09:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <>. We discussed it a fair amount in the Seattle interim, and there was pretty strong support in the room for getting rid of 1xx status, especially since they're poorly supported in implementations, almost non-existant in APIs, and often don't survive hop-to-hop. >> >> Julian, anything to add? I'm inclined to close this as a duplicate unless there's significant new information... > > I still fail to see a compelling reason to remove them. > > Why do we keep trailers, but not 1xx? I'd like to understand how we draw the line. My .02 - trailers work in a way where they may not get used much, but some people still find them useful, and they don't cause significant issues. 1xx, OTOH, has a track record of causing considerable havoc, and as has been pointed out many times, its semantics are better expressed in the framing layer. That said, it's very much a judgement call. When we made that decision, we discussed it both in an interim and on the list: http://www.w3.org/mid/D630DC2F-1FBF-4824-AE5E-1CF81F65DD03@mnot.net ... and there was considerable support for -- and no pushback against -- doing it. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 05:39:51 UTC