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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:47:05 -0800
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0901261747l501be0l8b5f48d4ba710af@mail.gmail.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

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> 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.

What is reasonable? What is a representation?

-Alan

>
> 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
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net (I am not a number. I am also not my web page.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 01:47:45 GMT

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