On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding<fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > That's because you happen to be reading it differently than > what I was thinking when I wrote it. The sentence is a bit > ambiguous if you don't pay attention to what the second "that" > means. If it is reordered to say > > A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does > not have a transferable representation of the requested resource > and is instead redirecting the client to some other resource > for further information. > > then I think the objection is handled without watering down > the purpose of using the status code on a GET. > > ....Roy Excellent! The rewording you give above would be fine with me - I would be satisfied if HTTPbis said this, or something equivalent. (because then the choice to yield a 303 can be attributed to the server, and would not necessarily reflect on the nature of the resource - "the server does not have" vs. "the resource does not have".) Best JonathanReceived on Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:04:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:29 GMT