HTTP 400（错误请求）用于逻辑错误，而不是格式错误的请求语法 [英] HTTP 400 (bad request) for logical error, not malformed request syntax
问题描述
HTTP / 1.1规范（RFC 2616）对<的含义有以下说法a href =http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.1>状态码400，错误请求（第10.4.1节）：
由于语法错误，服务器
无法理解请求。
客户端不应在没有修改的情况下重复
请求。
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
似乎有一个普遍的做法现在很少有基于HTTP的API使用400表示逻辑而不是带有请求的语法错误。我的猜测是API这样做是为了区分 400 （客户诱导） ）和 500 （由服务器引起）。使用400表示非语法错误是否可接受或不正确？如果可以接受，RFC 2616上是否有注释参考，可以更深入地了解400的预期用途？
There seems to be a general practice among a few HTTP-based APIs these days to use 400 to mean a logical rather than a syntax error with a request. My guess is that APIs are doing this to distinguish between 400 (client-induced) and 500 (server-induced). Is it acceptable or incorrect to use 400 to indicate non-syntactic errors? If it is acceptable, is there an annotated reference on RFC 2616 that provides more insight into the intended use of 400?
示例：
- Google Data Protocol, Protocol Reference, HTTP Status Codes
推荐答案
状态422（ RFC 4918，第11.2节）：
422（不可处理的实体）状态代码表示服务器理解请求实体的内容类型（因此415（不支持的媒体类型）状态代码是不合适的），并且请求实体的语法是正确（因此400（错误请求）状态代码不合适）但无法处理包含的指令。例如，如果XML请求主体包含格式正确（即语法正确）但语义错误的XML指令，则可能会出现此错误情况。
The 422 (Unprocessable Entity) status code means the server understands the content type of the request entity (hence a 415(Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request entity is correct (thus a 400 (Bad Request) status code is inappropriate) but was unable to process the contained instructions. For example, this error condition may occur if an XML request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically erroneous, XML instructions.
这篇关于HTTP 400（错误请求）用于逻辑错误，而不是格式错误的请求语法的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
