5

I know this has been asked many times over as I could tell when I typed in the title of the question though browsing though them I could not find a similar question on the topic of the tags that I thought about making.

Throughout the questions and answers that I have been improving I'm noticing a pattern on a lot of the things that I feel it would be useful if they could filter though using the tags relevant to their issue. A lot of questions involve error codes that do not yet have a tag made for them. Now my question is fairly simple and I know that a lot of questions based on error code are very board such as error 500 can be a lot of things but I feel it would be useful for people to browse via error code related to their own issues and filter from there onwards..

My question is..

I've noticed codes such as 301-Redirect and 302-Redirect have information after the code yet 403 does not. If I was to create say a tag 500 would this be plain simple 500 or 500-Error I know this comes down to personal preference but maybe the community can shed some light. I know we have synonyms to help on these situations but rather than having to go down that route later maybe some advice on this would save the trouble.

  • You've got "...but ya". Did you lose some text? – paulmorriss Mar 8 '13 at 9:39
  • Ya that would seem the case, was late last night and I can't for the life of me remember the ending sentence.. Will amend now though. – Simon Hayter Mar 8 '13 at 11:48
4

We're in the Pro Webmasters knowledge domain (so HTTP can probably be assumed wherever a status code is mentioned).

I believe that a taxonomy like status-code-100 through status-code-505 would be appropriate, though alternatives which may be more immediately-recognizable to newcomers are welcome.

  • 1
    I think http is worth putting in, so I'd prefer http-code-403 for example. – paulmorriss Mar 8 '13 at 10:09
  • RFC 2616 defines Status Codes, so I'd argue that status-code be included at a minimum - can we compromise at http-status-code-### ..? – danlefree Mar 12 '13 at 23:31
  • I'm happy with that, though I'm still wondering about Stephen's suggestion. – paulmorriss Mar 13 '13 at 11:20
1

I would prefer to name them identically to their names in the HTTP spec.

  • 200-ok
  • 301-moved-permanently
  • 404-not-found
  • 500-internal-server-error

Or will that make some of them too long for tags?

  • I'm thinking that the text, in those cases, will naturally appear in the question if anyone is searching on it, however, a searcher is more likely to try to narrow down a search by pre-pending "http status code" than appending the full message. (Unless the header response is copied verbatim - you bring up a good point) – danlefree Mar 13 '13 at 12:25
  • Tag length maxes out at 25 characters and 500-internal-server-error, by itself, is 25 characters so there is no option to apply both schemes unless we're double-tagging (and 203-non-authoritative-information exceeds the limit by itself). – danlefree Mar 13 '13 at 12:28
  • And 418-im-a-teapot? Though I suppose that's part of HTCPCP, not HTTP. – TRiG Jan 5 '17 at 16:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .