[8119] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Clapp)
Tue May 2 22:42:15 1995
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 22:36:49 +0500
Errors-To: procmaster@www19.w3.org
Reply-To: clapp@engr.orst.edu
From: "Andrew S. Clapp" <clapp@engr.orst.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Where could I find a list of these codes?
-ASC
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> >> Can someone explain where one should use a 403 response versus a 400
> >> response? Is using 400 only for mailformed requests, and 400 for
> >> requests with a command that isn't understood a reasonable
> >> interpretation?
>
> and Paul Phillips responded:
>
> > My spec indicates that 403 implies greater server understanding than 400
> > does. A 403 means the server tried to service the request, and failed,
> > while a 400 means that the server knew based on the request that it would
> > fail.
>
> Ummmm, almost. 400 Bad Request indicates that the server was unable
> to understand the request due to it being malformed. 403 Forbidden
> indicates that the server *did* understand the request, but refuses to
> service it for some reason that remains unknown to the client.
>
> > There does seem to be some abiguity here, but both codes instruct the
> > client not to repeat the request, so I don't think it's critical.
>
> There is a certain amount of overlap between 400 and all 4xx responses,
> but I don't consider that to be ambiguous. I'll change the spec so
> that the purpose of the two codes is clarified.
>
> Hmmmm, I could just change the example Reason Phrases to
>
> 400 You screwed up
> 403 Piss off
>
> ;-)
>
> ....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
> <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
> <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Andrew S. Clapp &_ ______ /\ /\ /\ ______\ Oregon State University
www.nero.net O7/O \/ \/ \/ \/ / COE Computer Services
