W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > September 2013

Question re HTTP 200 Response Code

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:33:20 -0400
Message-Id: <E369AACD-C6AF-4D4F-A43D-9E48544A489F@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <mark@zepheira.com>
Hi Mark,

I hope you have been well.

The W3C LDP Working Group [1] has been holding its 4th face-to-face meeting [2] this week.  One of the topics of discussion has been TimBL's comments [3] on the current editors draft of the LDP specification [4], specifically in regard to Section 4.10.2.3.

Tim wrote:
[[
4.10.2.3 303 lis a basically very unsatisfactory design because of the round trip. As this is a new spec, suggest defined 20X code meaning like a 303 but containing the representation of the thing 303d to. This has been found to a problem in LD. LDP can avoid it now.
Benefit: First page back to user in one less round trip.
]]

The WG has been discussing the possibility of a server returning a 200 (OK) instead of a 303, with the addition of a Location header to indicate that the server returned what the user wanted instead of what it requested.

Is that insane?  The current HTTP 1.1-bis draft [5] doesn't seem to preclude the use of a Location header with a 200 status code…

Thanks in advance for any comments you might have.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F4
[3] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2836
[4] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html
[5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-7.1.2

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood





Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 21:33:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:11 UTC