Registration request: resource-that-should-not-exist-whose-status-code-should-not-be-200

[hober]

Please confirm that:

• [x] You have read and understood the requirements for registration.
• [x] You have checked the registry and found no current value that meets your needs.
• [x] Your specification reference URL is stable; ideally, managed by a widely-recognised standards development organisation (e.g., published as an RFC). Otherwise, please give additional information below.

If so, please provide the details of your request below.

Enter the details of the link relation type below:

• URI suffix: resource-that-should-not-exist-whose-status-code-should-not-be-200
• Change controller: W3C
• Specification document(s): Detecting the reliability of HTTP status codes § 3.1. The resource-that-should-not-exist-whose-status-code-should-not-be-200 well-known URI

Any additional information (this will not be included in the registry)? None.

[mnot]

Hi Tess,

This looks like it's been adopted, correct? Could you comment on how stable / 'done' it is? If it's near done and/or really unlikely to change, we can register now; if not, we can hold until it's closer. There's some wiggle room on this, WDYT?

[VojtaStanek]

Hi

I have came across this issue and have done some digging and this path is currently adopted by Chromium (source). The spec has no changes in the last two years (source). Maybe @hober can share some more insight?