On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:

> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Jon Hanna wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why not. It tells us that the request cannot be successfully tried
>>> againt without alteration. It tells proxies that too.
>>>
>>
>> <quote>
>> 10.4.1 400 Bad Request
>>
>> The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed
>> syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without
>> modifications.
>> </quote>
>
> 418 Invalid
>
> The request could not be completed due to a validation failing against
> the sent entity. This code is only allowed in situations where it is
> expected that the user might be able to resubmit the request with
> valid
> content and where the sent content was syntactically correct according
> to its media type. The response body SHOULD include enough information
> for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Invalidations
> are
> most likely to occur in response to a PUT or POST request.

Yep, that's what I would do, though a properly specified response code
would never include that second sentence "This code is only allowed ..."
since servers are always right (and never omnipotent). And the last
sentence is kind of goofy -- request payload is unlikely to be
invalid when it isn't present.

Do you want me to standardize it?

Of course, it would help if browsers would implement HTTP, eventually,
and treat the code as a 400 if not understand.

....Roy