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