W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [httpRange-14] Resolved

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:06:28 -0400
Message-Id: <20DF8622-32D1-4E11-94DA-27F0CEDF6563@nokia.com>
Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "ext Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>


Hi folks,

I have been on vacation, otherwise I would have responded
sooner...

All in all, I find this to represent alot of progress
and to be very encouraging.

I am understanding this resolution to mean that the range of
http: URIs is taken to be unconstrained, and that an http: URI
can be employed to identify any arbitrary resource, not only
an information resources. If this is correct, then I think it
would be good to state that explicitly in some fashion.

Regarding the distinction between information resources and
non-information resources to be made based on the response
code, I think that it is too strong to consider it an error
to return e.g. a 200 response for a URI that identifies
a non-information resource. At most, I think that the
guidelines for response codes should be presented as a
best practice. It would be, IMO, unacceptable for existing
web applications to now be deemed broken because they
presently return a 200 response for URIs which identify
non-information resources.

If the prescribed usage of 200 vs. 303 response codes
is recast as a best practice and not an architectural
requirement, I can live with this resolution.

Regards,

Patrick


On Jun 19, 2005, at 00:25, ext Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>
> As everyone here knows, the TAG has spent a great deal of time
> discussing the httpRange-14 issue, as described at
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
>
> I am happy to report that we came up with a reasonable
> compromise solution at the recent TAG f2f meeting at MIT.
>
> <TAG type="RESOLVED">
>
> That we provide advice to the community that they may mint
> "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this
> simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:
>
>   a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>      2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
>      is an information resource;
>
>   b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>      303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified
>      by that URI could be any resource;
>
>   c) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>      4xx (error) response, then the nature of the resource
>      is unknown.
>
> </TAG>
>
> I believe that this solution enables people to name arbitrary
> resources using the "http" namespace without any dependence on
> fragment vs non-fragment URIs, while at the same time providing
> a mechanism whereby information can be supplied via the 303
> redirect without leading to ambiguous interpretation of such
> information as being a representation of the resource (rather,
> the redirection points to a different resource in the same way
> as an external link from one resource to the other).
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 15:07:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:36 GMT