W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > January 2011

Re: [Fwd: Reversing HTTP Range 14 and SemWeb Cool URIs decision]

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:08:36 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=u1hHu6nZBdPH8moyP+ME6FzqtJ9=2_yxxVP_3@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why 303:?
>>> But...
>>> 3) It is non-trivial to set up via Apache
>>
>> Hmm.  More details please. (Not pushing back, really want to know.)
>
> here's an example, the FOAF .htaccess file:
>
> http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaf/trunk/xmlns.com/htdocs/foaf/0.1/.htaccess

Well, this is a good start at a conversation. But help me to
understand what exactly what the objection is.

The lines that are not 'Redirect 303' directives perform functions
that are not related to delivering 303s for the ontology terms, so
they are not relevant for answering the question of what is
non-trivial.

The easiest solution is to use a RedirectMatch one-liner, but either
FOAF is being scrupulous and wants to issue immediate 404s for invalid
terms, or there is some other reason to use a long list of Redirects
that is specific to their setup.

With RedirectMatch I don't see what is non-trivial. So for the benefit
of doubt let's assume that scrupulous immediate 404s is considered to
be a requirement.

With a long list of individual Redirects the only difficulty I see is
adding to the list of terms in the Apache config file as the set of
terms in the ontology itself grows. This can be done either manually
or via script. I can see that either way would be annoying. Is this
annoyance what people are objecting to?

Thanks
Jonathan
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 16:09:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 January 2011 16:09:07 GMT