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

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:49:54 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1247086194.5532.4514.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 12:18 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >>> I recommend changing this to something weaselly like
> >>>
> >>>   A 303 response to a GET request *may indicate* that the requested
> >>>   resource
> >>>   does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by ...
> >>> ...
> >> Assuming we did want to change it, it would still to be phrased in a way
> >> that explains what 303 means, not what it "may" mean...
> > 
> > See above. I don't think much meaning has to be given beyond that you
> > get the location of a description. You can leave the 200/303 choice up
> > to the server, just as a choice between a 300 and a 200 is up to the
> > server. The server just decided.
> 
> I understand that; but the language defining the status codes needs to 
> be phrased so that it's clear what it means, not what it "may" mean.

Then how about: "A 303 response to a GET request indicates either that
the requested resource does not have, or that the server chooses not to
send, a representation that can be transferred by HTTP . . . "


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:50:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT