W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Historical - Re: Proposed IETF/W3C task force: "Resource meaning" Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:50:22 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0908040550mcd913e5t47a7157859fdea16@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Karl Dubost<karl+w3c@la-grange.net> wrote:
>
> Le 4 août 2009 à 00:57, Alan Ruttenberg a écrit :
>>
>> If a HTTP URI can denote a person, then what is
>> the verb DELETE supposed to do?
>
> DELETE the URI (of the information space), not the person (of the physical
> space). That is all the difference.
> HTTP does *not* define how the information is manipulated by the server.

Hello Karl,

I'm afraid the spec does not agree. Here is what it says:

"The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the resource
identified by the request-target."

By simple substitution, based on your assertion and the current
httpbis draft, we would conclude that the "resource identified by the
request-target" is the same as "the URI (of the information space)",
i.e. that URIs identify URIs.

> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:47:49 GMT
> In Paper tigers and hidden dragons » Untangled
> At http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/paper-tigers-and-hidden-dragons
>
> Web architects must understand that resources are
> just consistent mappings from an identifier to
> some set of views on server-side state. If one
> view doesn’t suit your needs, then feel free to
> create a different resource that provides a better
> view (for any definition of “better”). These views
> need not have anything to do with how the
> information is stored on the server, or even what
> kind of state it ultimately reflects. It just
> needs to be understandable (and actionable) by the
> recipient.

This quote represents yet *another* view of what resources are. With
regard to this I would say two things.

First, it is clearly at odds with the view presented by AWWW ("By
design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the scope of
what might be a resource.") and httpRange-14

Second, if this is the theory which one wants to use then it ought to
be fleshed out and documented in the specification. Web architects
aren't going to be able to understand *anything* if the spec is so
ambiguous that it admits too many alternative theories on the one
hand, and speaks inconsistently on the other.

-Alan
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:51:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT