- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 02:08:31 -0700
- To: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jonathan Rees writes: > >> The main problem I see is "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." which directly >> contradicts the httpRange-14 resolution. > > Doesn't contradict it as far as I can tell. Â It would perhaps be > better if it said "the server does not have a representation for the > requested resource that can be transferred. . .", but that doesn't > change the condition, just makes its server-depenence clearer. Um, if I may interject, one must first decide what is meant by "the requested resource". In the case where a URI denotes something that cannot be interfaced to a network, like a potato for example, then there are two 'things' associated with this URI: what it denotes, and the network thing that it resolves to, and which is responsible for emitting an HTTP response. In the case in question, of direct relevance to http-range-14, these cannot possibly be the same. So which of them is the requested resource? I raised this issue on the http mailing list, and got several very different replies. Until this is clarified, all debates about wording are moot. If the 'requested resource" is the thing denoted, then the above wording is technically correct, even if possibly misleading, since in this case the server cannot *possibly* have a representation of the requested resource. Pat > >> Suppose I have an ontology that defines some number of URIs >> (i.e. tells you, as best it can, what they should refer to). The >> URIs are not hash URIs. Now I am deploying a server for those >> URIs. The TAG tells me that I can use 303, but HTTPbis tells me I >> can only do a 303 if the server doesn't have a representation of the >> referred-to resource. How on earth am I, the server administrator, >> supposed to decide that question for every resource? > > Simply determine whether if you _didn't_ give a 303, would your normal > URI->representation mapping give a result or not. > >> I have to do a cross product: For each representation that I have, >> and for each resource in the ontology, is the representation a >> representation of that resource? > > Reading the proposed text that way seems sea-lawyerish in the > extreme. Would you be happier if the same text as is used in 8.4.5 > *404 Not Found* was used, i.e. > > 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server has not > found anything matching the request-target. > > ? > > ht > - -- > Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh > Half-time member of W3C Team > 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 > 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is > forged spam] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFKnXF+kjnJixAXWBoRAtUNAJ0TjNoj8g0j8PgXRavZ6RAJbTbgjACfcGXo > uPsGef67yEXBOqdfioSEomc= > =TB7C > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wednesday, 2 September 2009 09:09:24 UTC