How many wikipedia pages can we turn into .es domains?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes

On a side note, I need to start using 418 "I'm a teapot" more often.

Coincidentally I just set up a response that uses 418 I'm a teapot about an hour ago. I really wanted 422 Unprocessable Entity, but werkzeug doesn't implement that (and for some reason instead implements 418 I'm a teapot).

It doesn't implement that? https://github.com/mitsuhiko/werkzeug/blob/master/werkzeug/_...

Negative, that's just a dictionary for looking up the exception name. A pull request for 422 did get accepted today though, so yes, now it does.

https://github.com/mitsuhiko/werkzeug/pull/165

It's not even as useful as the Wikipedia list as the main page fails to specify which codes are from WebDAV, etc., and it even copies some made-up non-RFC codes without including the caveats.

I thought myself geeky for making this PDF cheat sheet, but now I see it's perfectly normal to do this sort of thing.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/222781/HTTP%20Status%20Code%20Defini...

Reminds me of http://httpstat.us/

Now we just need a little refactoring to merge these two. If only httpstatus.es was on github.

What's wrong with the first Google's response for "HTTP status codes" (i.e. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html)?

Part of my job is user support and a frequent problem is users not sure what a server error means, when explaining I like to provide sources for explanations I give. I don't like linking to the RFCs or wikipedia because they can be overwhelming/confusing for people who aren't particularly competent with technology. The original aim for this site was to have explanations in layman terms that anyone could understand and then also the wikipedia and RFC explanations, unfortunately I found that I am not very good at explaining... in the end it didn't turn out how I wanted but I figure there might be some value in it existing for some people -- I can still use it as a reference when providing user support, but it won't be as useful as hoped.

What user would ever care what a status code means? For users, there are two status codes: "200 OK" and "^200 Not OK and the webmaster has been notified"

I think I prefer the lolcat-compliant version: http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/303

I like the idea of adding that, I could also include httpstat.us in the same way, here's an example of how I think I'll do it (under code references): http://httpstatus.es/101

will complete that in the morning.

Or the f7u12 version: http://www.httprage.com/

Beautiful!

A suggestion, though:

Use the whitespace to the right of the status codes to display their explanations, rather than linking to a new page; it would be easier to browse this way.

Here you go http://nico.kunz.fm/projects/httpstatus-ajax/

The source of truth for this is the HTTP Status Code Registry at IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/

It would be really nice if this page could at least refer to it.

I especially like that the entries put front and center the degree to which the official RFCs are actually respected by browsers. That content is all (obviously) in Wikipedia and other sources, but usually buried in a subsection.

This really needs to clarify the wording on the 300 redirects...

Which ones specifically? I had to keep the micro-explanations very short so they only give a very very basic over-view, but the full page explanations should be more than suitable as they're a combination of the Wikipedia explanation and the official IETF explanation (from the RFCs).

Well, for 304 the explaination is "this and all future requests should redirect to given URI", which is just wrong. Simply "Not modified" would be better.

Great, can you include any relevant extracts from RFCs?