Please no.
On the one hand you have a reasonable request, well-argued and politely-put by a respected engineer, who is long-standing contributor to the IETF and W3C. On the other hand you have a student who thinks 418 is fun.
On the one hand you have a reasonable request, well-argued and politely-put by a respected engineer, who is long-standing contributor to the IETF and W3C. On the other hand you have a student who thinks 418 is fun.
Many voiced their refusals, they were also well-argued and politely put.
On another note, isn't it important to have students think HTTP is fun?
Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with arbitrary commenters on GitHub.
> Many voiced their refusals, they were also well-argued and politely put.
I read the comments on the node and requests issues and didn't see anything well-argued. Nothing said there refutes the substance of the request. Saying "but it doesn't do any harm" and then speculating about how the IETF should do things instead is not a coherent argument.
> On another note, isn't it important to have students think HTTP is fun?
Genuinely, it isn't.
Consistency comes to mind as a pretty good reason.
The (frankly shallow) technical merit is that it gives us one less status code, in a problem space where if you really need that specific last status code so much that it's worth undoing a small piece of nearly 20 year old Internet culture to get it, the solution isn't to take that status code it's to switch the way you represent status codes entirely.
I would make some comparison to scrounging for IPv4 blocks instead of switching to IPv6, but the growth rate of computers on the Internet and HTTP status codes aren't really comparable.
Every time github issue goes viral it ends with hundreds of useless comments full of animated gifs. That is not an argument for anything.