W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:28:56 -0400
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3B0C711B-B7E7-4343-9F77-D5B395CCD894@w3.org>
To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Clearly the way the TAG stated it is not helpful to many people.
Please everyone trying to stop arguing or worrying about
a way of deciding what is or is not an IR.

The important thing could perhaps better be stated:

> If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>       200 response, then the response contains the content of the document identified by that URI;   For example, the contents in HTML of a web page, and article, a data file, etc.

The important thing is NOT what the exact definition of what and IR or "document" or whatever is.

It is the RELATIONSHIP between the web page and the response.  The response conveys the content of the web page.

The meaning the HTTP 200 response are important, as the web is built on them, and we lose a ridiculous amount if we don't allow clients who read web pages todo the same things with them as they have alway sdone.

That said, this leaves open that if we want to invent a 209 response where the response contains information ABOUT the thing identified by the URI but not its contents, that could be useful.   It would also be appropriate for people who want to use URIs which look like web page URIs for arbitrary things, where in many cases you can't say really that they have a contents in the sense of the contents a document.  (Yes, you an split hairs by discussing people who have long tattoos but it that not IMHO useful!).

Tim


On 2011-06 -16, at 09:19, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> 
> The alternative is to ignore httpRange-14. The 'not caring' means: I don't care if there is such thing called 'information resource' or not and I don't care how people find a way to make it distinguishable (I.e., via 303). But "don't care" does not mean "object". For instance, I am an atheist, but I don't consider those who believes in God/Budda/etc., are wrong. They can do whatever worships they would like to do and I respect it. But on the other hand, I don't want them to force me to worship.
> 
> This is why the "resolution" that you referred is seriously wrong. It forces me, along with many others, to honor some metaphysical categorization that no one in the world can objectively define.    
>> <TAG type="RESOLVED">
>> 
>> That we provide advice to the community that they may mint
>> "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this
>> simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:
>> 
>>    a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>>       2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
>>       is an information resource;
>> 
>>    b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>>       303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified
>>       by that URI could be any resource;
>> 
>>    c) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
>>       4xx (error) response, then the nature of the resource
>>       is unknown.
>> 
>> </TAG>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:29:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:35 GMT