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

Re: Question re HTTP 200 Response Code

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:04:00 -0400
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <mark@zepheira.com>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF12920C9B.A646800E-ON88257BE4.007836A3-85257BE4.00793757@us.ibm.com>
I think it is important to note that what we are talking about in this 
particular case is returning a different resource, namely the first page, 
rather than the requested resource.

It seems to me quite different from the case where a page has moved and 
the server is returning the requested page from a different location.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote on 09/12/2013 05:33:20 PM:

> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> To: Mark Baker <mark@zepheira.com>, 
> Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
> Date: 09/12/2013 05:34 PM
> Subject: Question re HTTP 200 Response Code
> 
> 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 codeā€¦
> 
> 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 22:04:32 UTC

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