W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: FW: "Is 303 Really Necessary?"

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:17:15 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQhrjOS5vBWFbbcBAR7XGS5=v4MidcSZ8B6O9T@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> This debate has been raging continuously since 2004 or maybe earlier,
>> so my first reaction is "not again".
>
> Well, me too. But I'm now of the opinion that 5 yrs of implementation
> experience of httpRange-14 is saying it's an unnecessary overhead and
> an impediment to linked data adoption by the mainstream. Talis is
> heavily invested in making linked data successful and has a great deal
> of implementation experience in infrastructure, publishing and
> consumption which is informing the arguments in my post.
>
>>
>> If someone who is following the threads could post a summary here of
>> the arguments pro and con, or anything they've learned, when things
>> settle down a bit, I would be grateful.
>>
>
> Actually my original blog post attempts to do that, listing out the
> current disadvantages of relying on 303 redirects and the principle
> advantage of doing it.
>
> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
>
> Ian

Thanks, but this is not what I asked. Your post only presents one side
of the story and I was hoping to hear "pro and con". On www-tag we
have 6 years of impassioned defense of the 200-means-web-page story
and hash URIs - did no one come to their defense in the public-lod
thread? If not, how did the thread get to be so long?

Best
Jonathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 12:17:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT