Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work

On 11/6/10 8:11 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>> Mike Kelly wrote:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14
>> snipped and fuller version inserted:
>>
>>    4.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
>>        is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
>>        asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource
>>        identified by the Content-Location URI.  However, such an
>>        assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
>>        means (not defined by HTTP).
>>
>>> If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
>>> then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the
>>> information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and
>>> further clarified in the entity body itself through something like
>>> isDescribedBy.
>> I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe
>> possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when Content-Location is
>> there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented by some
>> statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html link element)
>> to assert the same.
>>
>> Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?).
>>
>> Nicely caught Mike!
> +1 This is precisely what we need.
>
> Ian
>
>
All,

So we have arrived at a destination that's mutually inclusive re. 303 
indirection. Basically, an additional technique that uses 
Content-Location as the switch. Nice, simple, clean, and shouldn't break 
a thing, as long as people stop producing "old school" RDF resources.

In addition, I think we've also triggered a POWDER fix that's been long 
overlooked.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen