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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:36:58 -0500
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <548DE098-F85C-414C-A3FC-B90C1482AF6E@ihmc.us>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

>
> On 12 Jul 2009, at 00:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>>> A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does
>>>>> not have a transferable representation
>>
>> What does "transferable" add to representation?
>> Would it be possible for someone to give an example of an
>> *un*transferable representation?
>
> I think the word "transferable" just adds a bit of wiggle room that  
> allows the server not to send the representation even if it has one.  
> An example might be a client that is not authorized to view the  
> resource, and the server 303-redirects it to a preview of the  
> resource. Another example might be a representation that is too  
> large for a mobile client on a slow connection. There might be many  
> reasons why a server, even though it technically speaking has a  
> representation, would prefer to redirect a client to some other  
> resource instead.

Ah, that would indeed be just the wiggle room I would need to make  
sense of this, since it allows for the possibility of there being a  
200-appropriate representation even when a 303 is emitted. But the  
text really should make this intention clearer than it does, if indeed  
this is what it means to be saying. I took Roy's reply to my suggested  
rewording to be a firm rejection of this interpretation, but maybe I  
missed the wiggle.

Pat

>
> (I didn't write Roy's text and am obviously just guessing.)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>>>>> of the requested resource
>>>>> and is instead redirecting the client to some other resource
>>>>> for further information.
>>>>>
>>>>> then I think the objection is handled without watering down
>>>>> the purpose of using the status code on a GET.
>>>>>
>>>>> ....Roy
>>>>
>>>> Excellent! The rewording you give above would be fine with me - I
>>>> would be satisfied if HTTPbis said this, or something equivalent.
>>>> (because then the choice to yield a 303 can be attributed to the
>>>> server, and would not necessarily reflect on the nature of the
>>>> resource - "the server does not have" vs. "the resource does not
>>>> have".)
>>>
>>> Hmm, then I am puzzled. Does 303 redirection really imply that the  
>>> server
>>> **does not have** a transferable representation? Surely 303  
>>> redirection is
>>> used under other circumstances than this, circumstances which have  
>>> nothing
>>> whatever to do with http-range-14 and were being used before the
>>> http-range-14 issue was even raised? No?
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
>>> 3973
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 17:37:53 GMT

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