Re: To what extent do we care about HTTP status code 308?

On 2012-01-14 06:29, Jason Duell wrote:
>
>> Right. I am saying 307 is good enough.
>
> I'm in agreement with Brian here until/unless I see a use case that
> seems to merit putting in the effort here. Filling in the fourth
> quadrant of a logical grid (and making redirects from foo.com to
> foo.com/) doesn't seem like enough to me personally.

Well, the effort is done; the code is there, including test cases.

There's also a cost in not doing it (for instance, time spent explaining 
to people why this status code is missing).

> I'm also with Brian in not being vehemently opposed. But let's remember
> how often little "simple" changes (especially somehow ones involving the
> cache) wind up involving a lot more followup work than we initially
> expect. So many other fish to fry...

That is true. We definitively need more test cases for the network stack.

For instance, I recently noticed that the Cache-Control header field 
parser is, let's phrase it politely, very naive; so is WWW-Authenticate. 
These problems may affect extensibility (introduction of new directives 
or auth schemes), and might affect security (for instance, Firefox will 
happily extract parameters from a quoted-string value in a new extension 
parameter). See <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=716346>.

Best regards, Julian