p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 29 April 2013 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C699221F9D0B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdF-E-A5PPfq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBD221F9CEE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWgjm-0008L3-VM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:34:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:34:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWgjm-0008L3-VM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWgji-0008KJ-6Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:34:50 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWgjh-0005qL-Dm for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:34:50 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D69F5509B6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D27B99AF-5FC0-4ABA-8E4D-9F3E241C4046@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:34:24 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.432, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UWgjh-0005qL-Dm 8c48ee3d6376c816546ac99085f9a940
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D27B99AF-5FC0-4ABA-8E4D-9F3E241C4046@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17653
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

p2 defines this status code:

> The 205 (Reset Content) status code indicates that the server has fulfilled the request and desires that the user agent reset the "document view", which caused the request to be sent, to its original state as received from the origin server.

but AIUI it isn't implemented in any browser. See:
  http://benramsey.com/blog/2008/05/http-status-204-no-content-and-205-reset-content/

While it might have uses outside of browsers, the identified use case *is* data entry, which screams "browser" (at least to me). 

AFAICT it was first proposed here:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1995MayAug/0575.html
and resolutely failed to catch on.

This being the case, should we consider noting its lack of implementation support, or even deprecating it (as we did for 305, which showed a similar lack of interest/deployment)?

Cheers,

P.S. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this; if people have strong feelings against both noting lack of support and deprecating it, just say so and I'm happy to drop it. OTOH if you think it's a good idea, say so and it'll help us make a decision more quickly.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/