Re: [httpRedirections-57] Resource-Decription Header: a possible proposal to consider.

Richard Cyganiak:
>> Your argument seems to be that 303 redirects are too weak;
>> that the redirect doesn't imply anything more than
>> "try-over-there".

Stuart Williams:
> There are some who make that complaint about 303. They 
> want to be able to make stronger assertions at least about 
> what is at the end of the redirect chain - in particular 
> they like to be able to assert that some (architectural) 
> conformance requirement has been violated *if* following 
> the chain does not yield a description of (amongst other 
> things) ?u. IMO 303 does not and cannot give such an 
> assurance.

Richard Cyganiak:
>> I would like to know why more than this
>> weak implication is necessary on the transport layer.

Stuart Williams:
> Others will have to speak up on that... but roughly 
> AFAIUI its about what it would mean to conform and 
> detecting when a source has failed to conform.

Give or take a few quibbles, 303 and rdfs:seeAlso are
pretty much equivalent.  If such "conformance" is really
required then wouldn't there also be a need for a
strong version of rdfs:seeAlso with similar guarantees?
If such a property hasn't been missed for a while then
surely that's an indication that this conformance
rule is not required.

Ed Davies.