W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:23:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4714BB63.8050701@gmx.de>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>>
>> Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>>> Re:
>>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0048.html
>>> Yes, big improvement.  May I suggest two editorial changes:
>>>
>>> 1. s/The Location URI indicates/The Location URI SHOULD indicate/
>> I'm not sure how this is better. Do you want to indicate that
>> there may
>> be edge cases where the Location URI does indicate something else?
> 
> Not by intent, but yes.  My thinking was that the owner of the URI originally requested may not be the same as the owner of the redirect URI, and hence the first owner might not have control over whether the resource at the redirect URI really *is* "descriptive of the requested resource", even though it is thought to be.
> 
> BTW, I do notice one other thing.  I suggest changing the following sentence:
> 
>     A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
>     resource does not have a representation of its own that can be
>     transferred by the server over HTTP.
> 
> to:
> 
>     A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
>     resource does not have a representation of its own, available
>     from the request URI, that can be transferred by the server
>     over HTTP.
> 
> The reason is that if the same resource were requested via a different URI, it might indeed provide a representation of its own (if it were an information resource).  The original text would have prevented 303 URIs from identifying information resources, rather than permitting them to identify any kind of resource.
> 
> Thanks

OK, thanks for the feedback; added to 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.i70-cacheability-of-303> 
for now.

I think both points are valid, but would like to hear from Roy (it's his 
proposal we're tuning) what he thinks...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 13:24:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:22 GMT