On Jun 28, 2005, at 15:41, ext Dan Connolly wrote: > > > ... if the TAG's recent > decision on httpRange-14 becomes the consensus of the community, > then the community will conclude based on the 200 responses > that seem to come back that it denotes an information resource. > > I think it's plain that Mark is not an information resource, > so there's something of a contradiction, or at least a potential > contradiction, here. > Which is precisely why the particular use of 200 vs. 303 based on the nature of the identified resource should be a best practice and not an architectural requirement. Cheers, PatrickReceived on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 14:27:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2007 13:53:02 GMT