We all know what 404 means, but what about the other possible response codes? (Well, I'm sure many of you know these too like the back of your hand.) I am surprised, however, to discover that after searching the Net (albeit on a 33.6 modem connection) I have been unable to find a list of response codes and their meanings. Surely, there must be one somewhere. W3C, from where I sit, appears to be down now, but I tried browsing them via Google's cache - query 'response code 206' etc. - as well as many other HTML web sites.

This is a list of response codes I've received for July.

Code 200 - OK
Code 206 - Partial Content
Code 302 - Found
Code 304 - Not Modified
Code 404 - Not Found

Ideally, I was hoping someone could suggest a web site that can crawl one's web site and identify these errors, i.e. tell me which pages it concerns. Having crawled and indexed my web site from the Atomz search engine, I was under the impression that I was guilty only of 404 (dead links). But maybe the codes can come about due to interrupted loading on the user's end? In short, I need a list of codes and web site that can help me identify problems.

Thank you
Anders

The list of defined response codes may not include all possibilities, as some implementations can return codes not included in the "defined" list.

Here is one of many sites that contains a listing of some of th eocdes and their intended meaning...
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/ht/responses.html


To check your own site, you really can't cover all of the possibilities, especially if you have dynamic content. A crawler could do a pretty good job of checking for some responses, but cannot catch everything. Such as 500 errors from scripts when the script bombs because of un-expected input.

The best thing to do is to check your site yourself regularly, possibly using a tool that will show you the HTTP headers being sent out by your server, and to also monitor the raw logs for the server.

Originally posted by elsmore1

http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/ht/responses.html

Wonderful! Thanks very much! I really like the simplicity of the 2**, 3** etc. system. I didn't know that. I will examine the raw logs, as you suggest.
Cheers
Anders