|
|
Posted by Paul Ding on 12/21/05 00:59
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:05:08 +0000, Craig Cockburn
<craig@siliconglen.com> posted something that included:
>In message <tfmgq1d2ptvn381v2ipa2bbkgm4is899ib@4ax.com>, Paul Ding
><lancastir@paulding.net> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:45:46 +0000, Craig Cockburn
>><craig@siliconglen.com> posted something that included:
>>>Does anyone know if there is a definitive list of 6xx http return codes
>>>anywhere?
>>To answer your question, yes. I know, and many others know as well.
>So there is no definitive list and a 6xx code's meaning is entirely up
>to the website?
No. There *is* a definitive list. It's a null set.
A 5xx return code would indicate that it's a server trying to do its
best. A 6xx return code would indicate that it's failing through
error, but deliberately failing and being noncompliant about it.
Obviously a 6xx return codes would indicate that the server was
programmed by an incompetent, or by Microsoft. Not that there's much
difference in practice.
--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|