W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:50:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVugc4U2zwVgrr5mDYXofWKYVOV_t233_vwcgRVFXO6yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, sandro@w3.org
On 2 September 2014 08:00, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> We could ask questions like "Is /Index?page=1 a representation of
> /Index ?" and "What is the subject of the metadata in a 200+CL, the
> effective request URI or the CL?" The end result of these is that we
> evaluate the use cases for 303.

I think that saying we end up re-evaluating the need for 303 is
drawing a pretty long bow.

Why don't we talk instead about semantics.  What semantic distinction
are you looking to make?  There's a functional pattern you are looking
to enable (request this, get that instead, don't pay extra round
trips), but that pattern is supported by 200+CL.
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 17:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC