ocular rewritten

Mockup here:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/679854595/
So if you're wondering what a 413 error is, it's an error the happens when the requested URL is too large for the server.

Support. Also. I made another mock-up. It contains gobo: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/679876927/

mrrecordman wrote:

Support. Also. I made another mock-up. It contains gobo: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/679876927/

Cool!

Can you add what the current one looks like? So we can see the difference?

DinoMaster20 wrote:

Can you add what the current one looks like? So we can see the difference?

I don't think a 413 error exists…
On Scratch, of course.

New mock-up: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/679882574/

How common do users browsing Scratch get a 413 error?

leahcimto wrote:

How common do users browsing Scratch get a 413 error?

When the URL is too large for the server to handle (currently on Scratch there is no 413 error)
Oh, and by the way, My browser / operating system: Windows NT 10.0, Chrome 100.0.4896.127, No Flash version detected

Currently it's like this but I'd support the new one cuz it's a lot better!

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error
2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error

THEY CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

soarroying wrote:

(#13)

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error

THEY CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

on Scratch, no. In fact, you're more likely to crash your own browser than get a 413
And I like how you completely missed my other point.

dhuls wrote:

2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

Nevermind

Kiska-7275 wrote:

(#15)
This kind of error sort of already exists (if I am correct, of course)

Nice! This is both useful and very unique! There weren't any other topics suggesting this!

the most common 413 errors are in the backpack so how would you implement this

glomeromycota wrote:

the most common 413 errors are in the backpack so how would you implement this

Wrong term of the 413 error.

dhuls wrote:

2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

but let's be honest, that would be a great April Fools error page.

Steve0Greatness wrote:

dhuls wrote:

2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

but let's be honest, that would be a great April Fools error page.

It would. Possible being shown at scratch.mit.edu/coffee?

Why not a 420 error? If we're going to be adding the Infinity Error Stones, then that's important.

Mockup:

Yeah, this isn't needed.

i support, i also made a mock up https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/680502823/

Support.
It would add a fun little touch to the error message.

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error
2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

i found this gulps

qloakonscratch wrote:

Why not a 420 error? If we're going to be adding the Infinity Error Stones, then that's important.

Mockup: ~snip~
Yeah, this isn't needed.

please dont thread hijack

well if theres no 413 error why do we need one?

-Reldrop- wrote:

qloakonscratch wrote:

Why not a 420 error? If we're going to be adding the Infinity Error Stones, then that's important.

Mockup: ~snip~
Yeah, this isn't needed.

please dont thread hijack

They're proving a point

gatgatcode wrote:

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error
2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

i found this gulps

You have to try to trigger a 413 error.
In fact, that's the only time I've seen a 413 error anywhere on the internet.

soarroying wrote:

(#8)

leahcimto wrote:

How common do users browsing Scratch get a 413 error?

When the URL is too large for the server to handle (currently on Scratch there is no 413 error)
Oh, and by the way, My browser / operating system: Windows NT 10.0, Chrome 100.0.4896.127, No Flash version detected

I don't think URLs on Scratch would ever pass however large they need to be to trigger a 413 error. I've never encountered one on the website, and I don't think many other users have either.

7salad3salad wrote:

well if theres no 413 error why do we need one?

Exactly.

dhuls wrote:

-Reldrop- wrote:

qloakonscratch wrote:

Why not a 420 error? If we're going to be adding the Infinity Error Stones, then that's important.

Mockup: ~snip~
Yeah, this isn't needed.

please dont thread hijack

They're proving a point

gatgatcode wrote:

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error
2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

i found this gulps

You have to try to trigger a 413 error.
In fact, that's the only time I've seen a 413 error anywhere on the internet.

Not me. If you noticed, the URL is only 6500 characters long. And it clarifies that the maximum is about 5100, meaning they're a lot more common than you though they might be. I've experienced several instances of 413 trolling, where someone would “link” you to something but it would actually just link to a 413. Also for qloak, it's still considered thread hijacking. You don't need to make unnecessary jokes about the situation to prove a point.

As for me, I think it's a good idea. With ST's lighthearted sense of humour, especially with April Fools, this would be a perfect addition to the line-up.

TopGG wrote:

. And it clarifies that the maximum is about 5100, meaning they're a lot more common than you though they might be.

That's still extremely rare (it would take 11 comments to post that)

TopGG wrote:

I've experienced several instances of 413 trolling, where someone would “link” you to something but it would actually just link to a 413.

Are you sure that's 1. Actually a 413 error (and not a 403) and 2. Actually links to a page on Scratch

New mockup, improving mrrecordman's mockup:

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

New mockup, improving mrrecordman's mockup:

Wow, that looks real! Great job on it!

Silicobra wrote:

Currently it's like this but I'd support the new one cuz it's a lot better!

God that URL be floodin'

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

New mockup, improving mrrecordman's mockup:

That's a 413 error, not like “OMG I CAN”T FIND THAT THINGY YOU REQUESTED" so I think we can add a scared Nano picture to replace Giga.

When and why would the URL ever be too big?

YoshiGirl153 wrote:

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

New mockup, improving mrrecordman's mockup:

Wow, that looks real! Great job on it!

thanks - i used inspect element

gatgatcode wrote:

dhuls wrote:

soarroying wrote:

(#11)

dhuls wrote:

There's no need for a 413 page. I don't think there are URLs too large for the servers to handle, and even then, they could use a 500 error.

They can be, if the URL is off the limits for the server.

1. A URL 623224 characters long isn't enough to trigger a 413 error, nobody will ever get a 413 error
2. People need to understand that websites don't need to have every HTTP status code implemented. I don't think we need, say a 418 I'm a teapot

i found this gulps

I went there and the page was simple:

Bad Request

Request Line is too large (5792 > 5118)

Had this ever been achieved or got the screen yet?

bump because this isn't actually a half-bad idea