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

Re: Issue-57

From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:35:48 +0000
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, 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: <CA1FCEA8.10656%xiao@renci.org>


What I would like to suggest is let's start the web architecture that would tolerate everyone. Let's make 200 code as it was before. That is: a 200 code says nothing except that a request has been successfully responded.

That's the key. Better: a 200 code says *nothing* as far as the interpretation of the symbol is concerned.

That is good. Then why not do it?



If TAG thinks that it is critical to make the distinction with regard to the nature of what the URI is used for, then invent some extra 2xx code as Tim suggested. For example, 209 = Information Resource (or Content of Document). 210 for non-information resource (or non content of a document).

They should probably not. But remember that was only *part* of range 14.
That doesn't mean no one should make the distinction, or that good practice for the semantic web is to ignore the distinction.

For me, I don't care because if there is no ontology that classify everything in the world into IR and if there is no reasoner that implements code to check every URI's response code and triggers subsequence inference, following httpRange-14 (even if I can) is simply a waste of time. Hence, I doubt I will ever do it. But for those who cares, 2xx code is cheaper than 303.

Xiaoshu Wang
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 19:36:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:36 GMT