HTTP 308 Incompetence Expected • Hacker News Board

Re: HTTP 308 Incompetence Expected

#41

Post by derefr » Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 8:13 PM UTC

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #38

derefr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, think of it this way. People use HTTP for two things these days: 1. Its originally-stated purpose--an application-layer protocol that allows web browsers to retrive hypermedia documents from web servers. In this usage, HTTP replaced Gopher+FTP. 2. A transport-layer protocol , with features such as identified sub-flows (requests in a pipelined keepalive connection, websockets, etc.), several usefully-differen…

> Eventually, HTTP may be the only transport-layer protocol. Worse is better strikes again! No, seriously; this is terrifying.

That it's terrifying is true, but it's always been happening, and HTTP is just the next step in it. See here (the comments especially):

http://250bpm.com/blog:22

Re: HTTP 308 Incompetence Expected

#42

Post by Pacabel » Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 11:39 PM UTC

frou_dh wrote: post #40

ZoFreX wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Zap all the thousands of aggregator comments complaining about fonts/background-colours and nothing of value would be lost. Sure, if you don't have a visual impairment. I do, and even though it's a very mild one, if one in 100 blog posts submitted to HN consider changing their colour scheme due to people complaining about it I would say it is worth it. And frequently I do see people changing their colour schemes ba…

The point is: take it to the author, not those standing around you on the bus.

Nonsense. The message is a good one for everyone to hear. It's not a mistake specific to one specific author. It's a mistake commonly made by lots of people, and so the more awareness there is of how to avoid the mistake, the better.

Re: HTTP 308 Incompetence Expected

#43

Post by frou_dh » Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 12:11 AM UTC

Pacabel wrote: post #42

frou_dh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is: take it to the author, not those standing around you on the bus.

Nonsense. The message is a good one for everyone to hear. It's not a mistake specific to one specific author. It's a mistake commonly made by lots of people, and so the more awareness there is of how to avoid the mistake, the better.

I simply disagree. Internet commenters in general are on red alert looking for any little thing to complain about. So many of these complaints are not worth clogging the tubes with or necessarily even valid at all.

(depth of this thread and meta-meta-meta acknowledged and ceased)

Re: HTTP 308 Incompetence Expected

#44

Post by friendzis » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 7:42 AM UTC

hobohacker wrote: post #23

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're well-marinated in standards bodies, and that's a good thing -- it's tough, often thankless work that someone needs to do. For the rest of us, the language from OP sure sounds like it's saying, "yeah do whatevs with 301, we give up". People often read RFCs in a hurry. Wouldn't this be a great place to use the a "SHOULD NOT" (change the request method)? If you're saying "MUST NOT" would be bad bec…

I guess I should out myself as a Chromium HTTP stack maintainer (since 2009, so this behavior predates me). One might consider me a domain expert here. I participate in IETF HTTPbis for the HTTP/2 work as the primary Chromium representative. I am not involved with the RFC 2616 revision work as that's tough, thankless work, that thank god we have Julian Reschke and Roy Fielding working on. As far as I'm concerned, I o…

The fact that browsers are buggy does not allow to list that as expected behavior. It's like "Some cars are made of paper and everyone dies in any collision >20km/h, but let's make this expected behavior" or "some chefs use cyanide instead of salt, therefore force salt manufacturers to add cyanide to all salt". These days it's not like deploying new version of browser to user requires major update to operating system, which would take 5 years to cover 90% of users.