W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work: But maybe it can be simpler?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:40:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD44181.90903@webr3.org>
To: Robert Fuller <robert.fuller@deri.org>
CC: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Robert Fuller wrote:
> On 05/11/10 17:26, Nathan wrote:
>> Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>> How about something that's totally independant from HEADER issues?
>>>
>>> think normal people here. absolutely 0 interest to mess with headers
>>> and http responses.. absolutely no business incentive to do it.
>>>
>>> as a baseline think someone wanting to annotate with RDFa a hand
>>> crafted, apached served html file.
>>> really.. as simple as serving this people.
>>>
>>> as simple as anyone who's using opengraph just copy pastes into their
>>> HTML template.. as simple as this
>>> really, please, its the only thing that can work?
>>
>> +1 from me - all this </slash> uri and 303 nonsense, now other codes and
>> any form of HTTP awareness is best completely removed. uri#frag gives us
>> that semantic indirection we need, without anybody even noticing (and
>> allows 200 OK).
> 
> What about 404 ;-) ?
> 
> What about
> 
> http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan#FredFlintstone

both equate to "" afaict - "no information about whatever, or whether 
whatever exists"

yet another benefit, all status codes have no meaning since 'frags 
aren't in the domain of HTTP, and if you don't have a description in RDF 
you don't a description, nothing said nothing known, no problem.
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:30 UTC