W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2007

RE: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:07:54 +0000
To: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C60FBCC3E437@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Tore,

FWIW, the inclusion of a Content-Location: header with a 200 response does not run counter to the TAG's advice at [1].

That said, at least at present, AFAICT, the TAG has not specifically encouraged it either.

BR and thanks,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tore Eriksson [mailto:tore.eriksson@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 December 2007 22:09
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: httpRange-14: Consequences of redirection
> Hello Stuart,
> On 12/1/07, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com> wrote:
> > Hello Tore,
> >
> > Firstly, I think there is probably quite a bit of common ground here
> > (at least between us). There are also quite a few thing on which we're
> > likely to continue disagree - but there are at least some were
> > agreeing in unneccessary (eg. whether or not client libraries are at
> > fault - I will make one last pass on that topic and have
> little more to add beyond that).
>  I guess we will have to agree to disagree -- unfortunately a
> common conclusion in this area. Thank you very much for your
> considerable input though.
> I would just like to wrap up with saying that I think it is a
> pity that the solution chosen (303 redirects) doesn't work
> with all present tools. When developing for the web you don't
> always have the privilege to choose your tools and sometimes
> you can not even tell on which system your software will run,
> as everybody that develops in EcmaScript have experienced.
> Considering this, a solution that
> (probably) works today (Content-Location) would in my opinion
> have been a better choice, even though it might not be a
> perfect fit in all semantic aspects.
> Regards,
> Tore
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:12:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:54 UTC