![]() ![]() John then had to give more disclaimers, well, because he is a face for Google now:Īlso, if people link to the teapot on your site, it might give you traffic, but those links aren't going to be passing PageRank. So they treat it as other 4xx status codes, I assume the 404 over the 410? John had to add in the comments of his post:įWIW I wouldn't see this as a direct ranking factor (we'll treat it as other 4xx HTTP result codes), sorry. ![]() No one is expected to use the status code but if you do, how does Google treat it? The HTTP 418 server status code was an April Fools Joke back in 1998. Usefulness is a subjective measure, of course, but usefulness in jokes/play is still usefulness.Google's John Mueller was having fun this morning when he posted on Google+ "Time for HTTP 418. Not all codes are from HTTP RFCs and I also think the "bug" here is that IANA has ignored rfc2324 for too long and should recognize the RFC as a valid HTTP extension with useful HTTP status codes. Note for instance all the ones from rfc4918 which is the WebDAV extension to HTTP, such as 424 and 507. The HTCPCP argument isn't all that valid as there are several recognized (IANA) HTTP codes from HTTP extensions like HTCPCP. ![]() There's not really even a strong technical reason why they are three digit codes to begin with in plaintext HTTP, it's just an arbitrary choice. In HTTP/1.x the status codes are plaintext and it's not like it would be that much of a change to most HTTP parsers. rfc2324 which defines the code is indeed not HTTP, it is HTCPCP (Hypertext Coffee Pot Control Protocol) and one could strongly argue that it doesn't belong in an HTTP library.Īt the point in the distant future where you are worried about needing more HTTP error codes and considering reusing 418 it may just be easier to just add more digits to the protocol. With that said, another part of the argument is valid. The node community can't decide unilaterally to change code points. Second, "we may need this code point" is disingenuous unless the user is part of the W3C there is no "we" here. The backwards compatibility issue won't be any more/less of an issue then than now. ![]() įirst, you can remove it when there this problem actually happens. > While we have a number of spare 4xx HTTP status codes that are unregistered now, the semantics of HTTP are something that (hopefully) are going to last for a long time, so one day we may need this code point. And some of the reasons are kind of contrived. I find the initiatives like this to be kind of a waste of time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |