Re: p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 17:15 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 0686B21F9E8A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ZU4y211YRQyK for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59E721F9E86 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWret-0005Jt-EZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:14:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:14:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWret-0005Jt-EZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1UWrem-0005Ee-Rn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:14:28 +0000
Received: from mailbigip.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.5] helo=homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1UWrel-00057p-Nm for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:14:28 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEBBBC032; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=00DwRYBQc959WbMvHJqtP1CZp+Y=; b=mKkXKxB+0CN4r1/qNXGTIGhzcvtQ uplrVCE/47tLBYiM0KKXgKWaXm2kvkuM/2s4QleSQuwTjBjbTkCR80El96K6LhJc uTv4mwwlm8o3eVwx3ghsDWGIulTDrbQJTLLOHZkvCPDRAgXAQYMEppzUngHure9Y Zk2q5DYazqi+vSs=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C87C4BC034; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <D27B99AF-5FC0-4ABA-8E4D-9F3E241C4046@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:12 -0700
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB428B8E-5654-46C3-83EA-0B9196B3C362@gbiv.com>
References: <D27B99AF-5FC0-4ABA-8E4D-9F3E241C4046@mnot.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.5; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.435, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UWrel-00057p-Nm b94bdc9aa2efbaf561cbddced5e3aae7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CB428B8E-5654-46C3-83EA-0B9196B3C362@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17662
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>

The most common use of 205 is within custom HTTP systems, not browsers.
We could only do harm by deprecating it.

....Roy

On Apr 28, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>