On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:37:43 -0500, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: > > > > > > Garrett Rooney wrote: > > > >>Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> > >> > >>>--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney > >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla? > >>>> > >>>>It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229. > >>>> > >>>>I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta > >>>>encoding, > >>>>and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in > >>>>order > >>>>to use it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it. > >> > >> > >>Any particular reason? It seems like providing support for the response > >>code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually > >>implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me... > > > > > > provided that garrett's patch is technically the correct way to add a new > > status code to apache, and that RFC3229 went through the proper motions to > > capture exclusive use of 226 within http, I don't see any reason why 226 > > shouldn't be added in 2.1. > > This sort of got dropped on the ground once Justin told me how to make > my module work without explicit support for the status code in the core, > and it's totally my fault for not pressing it, but I'd still like to get > this in or to hear what the reasoning for not including it is. > > So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any > reason not to add it"?
+1 (concept; implementation not verified)