- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:17:45 -0400
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- Cc: SWBPD WG <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
* Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-08-16 09:30-0400] > At 10:23 PM 7/15/2005 +0100, Dan Brickley wrote: > >fyi... > > > >Guess I should've cc:'d the WG list. I just asked TAG > >whether a 302 response on the dc:title URI is something they > >can live with. > > I don't yet see a response to [1]your query in the www-tag archive. > Have you had any indication of a leaning? Not that I've seen. > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jul/0012.html > > I mentioned this question to TBL. His off-the-cuff response was that > in his opinion none of the other 3xx responses had appropriate > semantics for the purposes of httpRange-14. Reading the HTTP1.1 > spec myself, I'm quite inclined to agree. Are you persuaded by the argument that the HTTP1.1 spec allows 302 to substitute for 303 anyway, so 302's should be tolerated? Dan
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:17:50 UTC