Re: SIMPLE chat: Status codes
Ben Campbell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.simple |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
(as individual) I have mixed emotions on the need for more granular nickname errors. I see the point, but I'm also hesitant to start a response code explosion. In this case, I guess it depends on what we expect a client implementation to do different with the different conditions. If the answer is "display the error to the end-user along with the comment text" for all cases, I don't find that very convincing. On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Saul Ibarra Corretge wrote: > Hi, > >> >> I think these special nicknames are permanently reserved, so, they are in use (by the system). >> >> I don't care much of the textual representation of the status code, since this is for us human to understand. The important think is that the semantics are clear. >> > > Ok, bad example :-) I was thinking about some nicknames that could perhaps be disabled by the administrator, like bad words or some special names. This case is semantically different than a malformed nickname (it's not malformed) and it's also not "not in use" (nobody can use it, actually) so IMHO a new code could be appropriate. > > > Regards, > > -- > Saúl Ibarra Corretgé > AG Projects > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple