- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:01:31 +0000
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Le 05/11/2010 16:42, Nathan a écrit : >> [skip] >> >> Sadly your proposed 210 still has it, the true problem isn't a status >> code thing, it's an "if I can GET it, it's a document", hence the >> earlier outlined problems with 303 as it stands, still the same problem. > > So, you are against hash URIs? Because if you can GET a hashless URI > with 200 OK, then put a hash behind it and you can GET the resulting URI > with a 200 OK too. > > According to httpRange-14, if the HTTP response code for a given URI is > 2xx, then the URI denotes an information resource. Quote: > > """ > a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a > 2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI > is an information resource; > """ > > GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine -> 200 OK -> it's a document! > > GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine#me -> 200 OK -> it's a document! > > GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf -> 200 OK -> it's a > document! > > So your argument is moot since it is going against your own recommendation. Did you check the HTTP request? #frag isn't included, it's chopped off before sending, those three requests resulted in the following 3 URIs being requested: http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf no frags, un-mooted. Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:02:47 UTC