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

Re: Introduction to URIs (was RE: WebArch introduction, sort of)

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:32:18 -0800
Message-ID: <497E4802.3090807@oracle.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org

Larry writes ...

"Suggest "No, by definition":
Define "information resource" as a resource in which it is reasonable
to expect to be able to retrieve a representation. "

This is a usecase for the LinkHeader to indicate related information about the resource.

All the best, Ashok


Larry Masinter wrote:
> 	"There is real debate underway at the moment as to whether it is
> correct 
> 	for a web server to return a 200 OK response code in a response to a
>
> 	request for a URI which identifies a non-information resource."
>
> Suggest "No, by definition":
> Define "information resource" as a resource in which it is reasonable
> to expect to be able to retrieve a representation. 
>
> Then:
>
> * If it were correct to send 200 OK, then the resource would be an
>   "information resource" and thus not a "non-information resource".
> * Thus, by elimination, it is not correct to return 200 OK for
>   non-information resources.
>
>   
>> "Therefore, the use of a URI to directly denote both an information 
>> 	resource and a non-information resource should be viewed as a
>>     
> violation 
>   
>> 	of good practice, but *not* a violation of Web architecture."
>>     
>
> Use of a URI to directly denote anything is always a leap of faith.
>
> Larry 
>   
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 23:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:11 GMT