W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:25:08 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0907111625o6bfe4424j356d93a9d4436da5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> 3. If a resource has a representation, then a GET to its URI should be
> answered by 200. If not, then 303, 404 or 410 would be fine choices.

This *should* is not warranted. As there is often no way to include
structured information *about* a resource in-band of the
representation (sense http/awww), or to include it in a way that is
predictable by the requester, is a perfectly reasonable choice to use
303 to interpose and therefore provide a way of supplying this "about"
information. In those cases where someone is confident enough that a
200 response would have been appropriate, that one can supply
information *about* the resource (in RDF, for instance) means that
there is an opportunity to indicate (with the potential for being much
more precise than http) where that "representation" can be fetched
from.

-Alan
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2009 23:26:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:07 GMT