W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2012

Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4F735B54.9000806@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 3/28/12 12:12 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> The "fact" that a 200 OK determines whether something is a member of Set-A or Set-B is a design choice made by httpRange-14, not a fundamental truth of the universe. The proposal makes a different design choice, in saying that you need more than just a 200 OK response to say, beyond all doubt, that a URI refers to something that is member of Set-B.

Really simple question: what does 200 OK actually imply?

I know it to mean the following:

Client to Server via a Locator (a URL which is a kind of URI): GET me 
*data* from Location/Address X.
Server to Client: OK, I'll retrieve the *data* requested from the 
Location/Address specified in your request.

If you use a Locator as a Name in the generic sense, then the protocol 
works as follows:

Client to Server via a Locator (that isn't actually functioning as 
Locator anymore): GET me *data* from Location/Address X.
Server to Client: See Other, because I can't retrieve *data* for you 
from the Location/Address in your request.

Simple, elegant, and seriously dexterous. All alternatives ultimately 
deliver a downgrade because "deceptively simple" != "simply simple".

Links:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaJPNrf1DPY -- "there is no spoon" 
clip from the Matrix .

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 18:41:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:38 UTC