content icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
content copied to clipboard
Published 1 week ago • verified publisher icon mdn

Add more HTTP status codes

Open Harshil-Jani opened this issue 3 years ago • 8 comments

Summary

HTTP response status codes.

  • 102 Processing
  • 207 Multi-Status
  • 208 Already Reported
  • 226 IM Used
  • 421 Misdirected Request
  • 423 Locked
  • 424 Failed Dependency were missing in the list. So they were added.

Motivation

This will be my very first contribution towards MDN. I used it as a major resource of learning so now with this I want to be part of the MDN network and help it grow more effectively

Supporting details

Related issues

Fixes #12591

Metadata

  • [x] Adds a new document
  • [ ] Rewrites (or significantly expands) a document
  • [ ] Fixes a typo, bug, or other error

Harshil-Jani avatar Feb 01 '22 19:02 Harshil-Jani

Preview URLs (7 pages)
Flaws (1)

Note! 6 documents with no flaws that don't need to be listed. 🎉

URL: /en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/424 Title: 424 Failed Dependency Flaw count: 1

  • macros:
    • Unknown macro glossary{"webdav"

(comment last updated: 2023-02-10 06:08:26)

github-actions[bot] avatar Feb 02 '22 03:02 github-actions[bot]

Before reviewing in detail, @hamishwillee and @elchi3, what is your opinion about adding these as they are part of the (fairly common) WebDAV specs and not the web stricto sensu.

I'm torn here.

teoli2003 avatar Feb 07 '22 16:02 teoli2003

@teoli2003 I can make any changes needed ? The PR is been on hold from last 6 months?

bhaveshraj336 avatar Aug 28 '22 07:08 bhaveshraj336

We are waiting for answers from @hamishwillee and @elchi3 here.

teoli2003 avatar Aug 28 '22 07:08 teoli2003

pinging @hamishwillee and @Elchi3

estelle avatar Sep 28 '22 00:09 estelle

Before reviewing in detail, @hamishwillee and @Elchi3, what is your opinion about adding these as they are part of the (fairly common) WebDAV specs and not the web stricto sensu.

I'm torn here.

I think it would be good to add them. Otherwise people wonder what those status codes are for if they are just absent. However, I wouldn't add browser compat sections when there isn't any functionality provided by browsers. spec urls can be added with a front-matter, I suppose.

Elchi3 avatar Sep 29 '22 15:09 Elchi3

@teoli2003 @estelle Sorry to be late to the party. FWIW I agree with @Elchi3

Specifically, I use MDN for first place to look up this kind of information and I think this is a good contribution (thanks @Harshil-Jani).

But I'd like not to have those spec tables in the source. Is it possible to specify a "spec_url" in frontmatter yet? I couldn't find an example of this in content.

I'm also not sure about omitting the compatibility section. My concern here is that readers don't necessarily understand that it is missing because there is no compatibility story to tell. Not, not so worried about this case, but see case in aside below.

@teoli2003 I assume you are going to review this following the feedback that we think this is good, but if you want me to then let me know.

Bigger picture aside ...

W.r.t. browser compatibility we have the same problem with some HTTP headers in that "browser support" is nonsensical. How we indicate this seems to be inconsistent - there are plenty of cases where we just say "true". It would be good to agree an approach and use it here.

The obvious thought is that if something has no compatibility story then it shouldn't be in BCD, and that we therefore should push the spec urls into page metadata. I dislike this because there is no way to know if something is missing or deliberately omitted from BCD. Also BCD is good at managing the spec data and having it managed in multiple places sux.

So if it were practical and politically possible, my preference would be to work out a way to indicate "not applicable" for version compatibility and still keep the specs in BCD.

hamishwillee avatar Oct 03 '22 01:10 hamishwillee

@teoli2003 I put a comment above, but I think this is still waiting on you.

hamishwillee avatar Oct 25 '22 06:10 hamishwillee

OK, I'm going to ping @teoli2003 one last time. If not, next time I come here I'm going to do the work to get this in.

hamishwillee avatar Jan 03 '23 01:01 hamishwillee

Ok, I got a look at this, and I'll add a few commits to get specs and compatibility in. As these are not in bcd, there is no compatibility per se, but I'll put a sentence explaining why.

Then I'll hand it to Hamish for a last review before landing this.

teoli2003 avatar Jan 16 '23 09:01 teoli2003

@hamishwillee

I went again through this PR. The difficulty here is that it adds status code used in very different contexts

  • Some are part of the basic HTTP semantics, like 102
  • Others are part of WebDAV and its extensions.

For the latter, I've rewritten them with the following intention:

  • We should make it explicit that these are for WebDAV and not for regular HTTP (and web developers unless interacting with such servers, should never bother with them.
  • I link to the glossary page about WebDAV and give minimum information (like an example) without going into too many details about the protocol: we are not documenting WebDAV here, only giving enough context so that a dev will understand what's going on there. For example, I don't describe the XML structure of the body of a WebDAV, but I use it in an example several times (as it was necessary to have an idea of the body of a response).

I hope this makes these new articles more useful.

teoli2003 avatar Feb 08 '23 11:02 teoli2003

@teoli2003 Looks great/good strategy. I've done some minor subedits and there is one point for clarification left.

hamishwillee avatar Feb 10 '23 01:02 hamishwillee