- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:03:47 -0400
- To: "Ed Davies" <edavies@nildram.co.uk>, "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
> From: Ed Davies > [ . . . ] > Good points: 1) 303 can point to a non-RDF document whereas > rdf:seeAlso shouldn't, 2) 303 should point to an authoritative > document rather than just any old document which happens to say > something about the original resource > and 3) 303 is functional whereas seeAlso isn't. > [ . . . ] Yes, great points. However, even though #2 is how we might *like* things to work, I am uncertain that the HTTP spec actually licenses that rule. The HTTP 1.1 spec says merely: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.4 [[ The response to the request can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally requested resource. ]] I.e., does "The response to the request can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource" really mean that the original URI has delegated authority to the new URI for defining the meaning of the original URI? Or does it merely mean "look over there, and if you happen to find something useful that you trust, you're in luck"? I think this may be what Jonathan Rees was trying to point out in his earlier message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0084.html [[ Also note that for program (as opposed to human) use, a 303 is pretty much useless if you don't know anything about the relationship between the named resource and the referenced resource ]] David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 21:04:11 UTC