Re: HTTP 302

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>>>
>>>  One last comment, it's a shame we use a code meaning "See Other"
>>>>
>>>> You could get a lot of useful mileage out of a 3XX code meaning "Is
>>>> Described By"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  and what if you got two of those 3XX's chained, what would be being
>>> described?
>>>
>>> -> GET /A
>>> -< 30X /B
>>> -> GET /B
>>> -< 30X /C
>>> -> GET /C
>>> -< 200 OK
>>>
>>> does /C describe /A or /B ?
>>>
>>
>> /B (assuming 30X = 303)
>>
>
> Sorry I meant 30X to be a new status code meaning "Is Described By". That
> said, 303 doesn't mean that /C describes anything, it just indicates that
> the requested resource does not have a representation of its own that can be
> transferred by the server over HTTP.


The proposal was that 303 is branded "is described by".


>
>
>  Can you offer an interpretation otherwise?
>>
>
> Well, what if it describes /A, or something else entirely, or nothing at
> all? It seems like a tall ask for a server responding to one URI to say what
> another URI is (specify that another URI describes something) - perhaps the
> weakness of the "see other" statement is an architectural strength in the
> web.
>

In other words, what if we didn't have any protocol.
Then we wouldn't have any ability to predict anything. If you like that sort
of thing in network protocols more power to you. I don't.

-Alan