Talk:HTTP

Clarify

Again, the task specification is really vague. It only says "Print a URL's content." This rises questions:

• What do you mean by "print"? Print on paper or display on screen? There seems to be both interpretations in current implementations.
• What do you mean by "content"? The source code or rendered page?

Why is it so difficult to write even couple of sentences to specify the task? Specifying the task is the most important part of any software project.
--PauliKL 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relax, it's fixed. --Mwn3d 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the approach. Wouldn't "Display the request content using the most convenient method" be more appropriate? Some languages may not have easy access to the console. --Short Circuit 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's OK too. --Mwn3d 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed? I don't understand this spec. The content of a URL is the interior of the string. What is "source code"? Where in the HTTP specification do they use the term "source code" to denote any portion of the document named by a URI?

(Please sign your posts). Comments on the change in wording? --Paddy3118 00:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please confine your attention to what is said, not who. I see the text "Paddy3118, ...", but that means nothing to me and carries no authenticity (not that any is required: you're not writing me a check).

This is one example why you need to sign your posts. You inserted a paragraph in front of someone else's comment without a sig, at the same indent level, now it's difficult to tell if the above utterance was from Kernigh or some impolite person. If you are too good to register a user name, at least have the courtsey to sign it with your IP. --Ledrug 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you fetch an HTML file, you get HTML source code. This is not true in the general case; http://rosettacode.org/mw/title.png is not the source code of anything. --Kernigh 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it locates a resource, the nature of the resource is carefully not defined. --Paddy3118 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you fetch an HTML file, you get an HTTP response with headers, and a body which contains HTML code. Some of the progrmas in this page look like they just dump the raw response, whereas others show the body.

Not Tested

Well..someone can test C# and Ruby examples? They are working?

ruby is working Rahul 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

C# (on Mono) is working --ShinTakezou 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

(eg) https://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=HTTP&type=revision&diff=315692&oldid=304000
Someone has just spent an awful lot of time updating this page.
I would like to think they did so with the best of intentions, however:
They did this anonymously, without any prior consultation.
(For instance, I might argue that rosettacode.org itself remains a better choice than w3.org, and probably wikipedia/google too.)
They changed every single example, almost certainly without proper testing for the majority.
They removed quite a few comments.
They removed all output sections.
There is a C example buried in there that might be worth preserving, as an alternative to the original (or v-v).
Two JavaScript examples for XMLHttpRequest() and jQuery were replaced by a single fetch() example.
Twenty "omit from" have been removed.
I am not in any way personally upset by this, but can see that if left it might set a dangerous precedence: discuss.
--Pete Lomax (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)