- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:56:09 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 3 Apr 2008, at 18:02, Jonathan Rees wrote: > The utility of httpRange-14 is significantly reduced as long as not > all minters of URIs for non-IRs adhere to it. I have no idea what > the penetration of httpRange-14 is, but my guess is that it is and > will remain low. Any backup for that guess? I'm pretty sure that everything shown in [1] adheres to it, and that's a quite significant part of the post-document Web. Best, Richard [1] http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/ > > > The big win of httpRange-14, as I see it, is that it is a positive > affirmation of what was probably the intent of RFC2616, that a 200 > response reflects some inherent connection (maybe even identity, > sometimes) between the information received and the referent of the > name (whatever it is, even if its identity is a secret), and not > just something that a third party has said about the referent. (The > correct thing to say here may be different, but that's OK, any kind > of positive statement is fine by me.) Even if it has no practical > effect, I think it's a bit of pedantry that provokes thought and > helps to influence people to be honest. > > My two cents. > Jonathan > >
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 17:56:52 UTC