Luke Emmet luke at marmaladefoo.com
Wed Jun 10 20:04:54 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On 10-Jun-2020 13:16, Thomas Karpiniec wrote:
One way to offer more flexibility could be to use the second digit of
the "2n" response code as saying "this content
= 10^n bytes".
But I would raise no objections to maintaining the status quo, or to
adopting the three codes suggested here.This seems nice and future proof, but uses up a lot of status codes potentially (29 takes us up to 10^9)
However, it seems we are making a lot of effort to find the wrong way to communicate important information about download size. In any networked application this information is really useful for clients and users to make good choices about whether to wait for something to come or not. If we can have lang and mime-type in the response for 20 response, is it really that philosophically disturbing to include this important information that we know makes network bandwidth negotiation better for everyone?
If we have to, I think it could be a client option:
[ ] limit non-text content to 5Mb per request[x] download all text/* content
Best Wishes
- Luke