On Mar 24, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
>>> 418 Invalid
>>> The request could not be completed due to a validation failing
>>> the sent entity. This code is only allowed in situations where it is
>>> expected that the user might be able to resubmit the request with
>>> content and where the sent content was syntactically correct
>>> to its media type. The response body SHOULD include enough
>>> for the user to recognize the source of the conflict.
>>> Invalidations are
>>> most likely to occur in response to a PUT or POST request.
>> Yep, that's what I would do, though a properly specified response
>> would never include that second sentence "This code is only
>> allowed ..."
>> since servers are always right (and never omnipotent). And the last
>> sentence is kind of goofy -- request payload is unlikely to be
>> invalid when it isn't present.
>> Do you want me to standardize it?
> Yes please.
Actually, Julian just pointed out to me that WebDAV already
defined a 422 (Unprocessable Entity) status code which is
so I guess I don't need to write that I-D after all.
Unless there is some reason that you can't use 422?