W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

[Closed] Re: concepts doc: 404s aren't meaningful?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:03:01 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030411120050.0327f908@127.0.0.1>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

(This message by way of formally wrapping up the comment...)

As a result of other changes to the document, the offending text is no 
longer included, so this issue becomes moot.  In particular, the entire 
section on social meaning that contained this text is being removed, so 
this comment is closed:  the comment was accepted, but in the event no 
additional change was required.

#g
--

At 09:06 14/02/2003 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:

>The concepts doc says:
>
>>Issuing an HTTP GET request and obtaining data with a "200 OK" response 
>>code is a technical indication that the received data was published at 
>>the request URI; but data received with a "404 Not found" response cannot 
>>be considered to be similarly published information.
>
>First, the f in Found should probably be capitalized. More importantly 
>though, I don't think that last bit is correct. Most people consider 404 
>error pages to be published. For example, I think the author of:
>
>http://harrumph.com/404
>
>would considered it a published document.
>
>--
>Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com/]

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 07:15:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT