IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>MOD Status code for URI's too long?

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>MOD Status code for URI's too long?

Re: IPP>MOD Status code for URI's too long?

Robert Herriot (robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Mon, 11 May 1998 14:57:19 -0700

--=====================_12281369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I cannot remember why we introduced it. But after talking with Tom, I would
support changing the message 'client-error-request-uri-too-long' to
'client-error-request-value-too-long' and have it apply to all types that
are text-like, namely text, name, charset, language, keywork, uri,
uri-scheme, mime-media-type, text-with-language, and name-with-language.
This message would be returned like 'bad-request' and indicate that no
processing was going to take place, but it would give a user a bit more
information about why theclient isn't behaving. In the case of
'client-error-request-value-too-long', the user might realize that if he
sent in a short text field, things would work.

Bob Herriot

At 02:35 PM 5/11/98 , Carl Kugler wrote:
>I agree that it would be simpler to return 'client-error-bad-request' whenever
>an attribute fails the length test. Why was
>'client-error-request-uri-too-long' introduced in the first place? If there
is
>strong consensus that we don't need it, can we change the document?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>C
>

--=====================_12281369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

I cannot remember why we introduced it.  But after talking with Tom, I would
support changing the message 'client-error-request-uri-too-long'  to
'client-error-request-value-too-long' and have it apply to all types that
are text-like, namely text, name, charset, language, keywork, uri,
uri-scheme, mime-media-type, text-with-language, and name-with-language. 
This message would be returned like 'bad-request' and indicate that no
processing was going to take place, but it would give a user a bit more
information about why theclient isn't behaving.  In the case of
'client-error-request-value-too-long', the user might realize that if he
sent in a short text field, things would work.


Bob Herriot


At 02:35 PM 5/11/98 , Carl Kugler wrote:
>I agree that it would be simpler to return 'client-error-bad-request' whenever
>an attribute fails the length test.  Why was
>'client-error-request-uri-too-long' introduced in the first place?  If there is
>strong consensus that we don't need it, can we change the document?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>C
>

--=====================_12281369==_.ALT--