- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:36:58 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > On 12 Jul 2009, at 00:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>>>> A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does >>>>> not have a transferable representation >> >> What does "transferable" add to representation? >> Would it be possible for someone to give an example of an >> *un*transferable representation? > > I think the word "transferable" just adds a bit of wiggle room that > allows the server not to send the representation even if it has one. > An example might be a client that is not authorized to view the > resource, and the server 303-redirects it to a preview of the > resource. Another example might be a representation that is too > large for a mobile client on a slow connection. There might be many > reasons why a server, even though it technically speaking has a > representation, would prefer to redirect a client to some other > resource instead. Ah, that would indeed be just the wiggle room I would need to make sense of this, since it allows for the possibility of there being a 200-appropriate representation even when a 303 is emitted. But the text really should make this intention clearer than it does, if indeed this is what it means to be saying. I took Roy's reply to my suggested rewording to be a firm rejection of this interpretation, but maybe I missed the wiggle. Pat > > (I didn't write Roy's text and am obviously just guessing.) > > Richard > > > > > > >> Thanks, >> >> -Alan >> >> >>>>> 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".) >>> >>> Hmm, then I am puzzled. Does 303 redirection really imply that the >>> server >>> **does not have** a transferable representation? Surely 303 >>> redirection is >>> used under other circumstances than this, circumstances which have >>> nothing >>> whatever to do with http-range-14 and were being used before the >>> http-range-14 issue was even raised? No? >>> >>> Pat >>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 >>> 3973 >>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 17:37:52 UTC