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

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

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:56:05 -0800
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005a01c9802a$cc023bd0$6406b370$@org>

I might ask "what is correct?" and "what is a non-information resource"?

My point wasn't to debate the merits of one definition or another,
it was exactly to point out that the question rests entirely on
terms that have no good definition by themselves, and that you might
as well resolve them by definition rather than continuing to debate
them. 

If it isn't clear, I'm in favor of taking an operational approach.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:47 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); Henry S. Thompson; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Introduction to URIs (was RE: WebArch introduction, sort of)

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 02:56:55 GMT

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