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 12:04:30 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoBjBOompSepRJ4At+PPC6F2CZeej4z2EdneBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
I was asking about the thread(s), not about the blog post.

There are two questions that have sides, hash/slash being one, 303/200
being the other, although they are closely linked.

For the hash question it is conceivable that if someone heard a
defense of hash, they might learn something and decide to use hash
instead of non-hash URIs, making the problem go away. Maybe some of
these arguments came up on the thread. That would be interesting.

For 303, the question is whether anyone defended the prohibition on
2xx when the referent is not an "information resource".  If there
weren't any such arguments in this thread, then fine, that in itself
would be interesting. But in that case I can't imagine why the thread
got to be so long - people would have just settled the question and
been done with it.

I'll look for myself.

Jonathan

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> I worked hard to present both sides. What do you see as missing? I
> don't think covering hash URIs is relevant to the argument I am making
> because I am not making a recommendation for URI choice for resources
> but simplifying the pattern where someone has already selected a slash
> URI (e.g. dbpedia.org or many millions of other resources)
>
> Ian
>
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:04:59 GMT

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