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

Re: Issue-57

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:44:09 -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: <F1BC62A0-143C-495E-A668-3EF0C5B4C326@w3.org>
To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>

On 2011-06 -16, at 14:36, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

>>> 
>>> . As I have argued a long time ago, httpRange-14 forces me to answer a metaphysical question that I cannot answer before I can put a thing on the web. 

You have always been wrong about that.  You could argue that you have to have a perfect definition of "thing" before you put a thing on the web.  Or you could argue that you must have perfect definition of "pie" before you put a pie in an oven.  This is not the case.   Millions of people are putting documents on the web without worrying about an exact definition of document.
You can attack any spec by trying to argue about the meaning of any terms ad nauseam. But it is not constructive.  I have noticed that groups asked to write about x and which start by trying to define x often just lost in the weeds, as one can pick holes in any english definition.  

> 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. 

If the client can gather nothing from the 200 code at all, the there is not much point 
in doing the operation.  In the web architecture, it is the 200 that allows the
client to in future point others too the web page using the same URI
and expect them to get the same document. (not any document about the same thing,
or any document by the same author or any document of the same length)
(You can nit-pick about the definitions, but it is not very constructive).


> 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).  

You are thinking of this upside-down again.   It isn't the class of object -- it is the relationship with the response.  Do you mean:  209 = here is contents of x; 210 = here is data about  x ?

Do you suggest the bulk of the pages on the existing web switch to 209 instead of 200?

Tim
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 02:44:24 GMT

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