W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2014

Re: A new HTTP response code say 209

From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:21:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAWM5TxOVgqPMaVjgSiAj_Ce6XnnHxZWGmOTt3pOKme-HpJ9Lg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: Henry Thomson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Arnaud LeHors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2014, at 12:57, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Henry Story writes:
>>> It is a bad idea to put semantics into media types. Media types are
>>> there to help interpret the representation coming back from the
>>> resource, not for describing the resource itself ( since after all
>>> the same resource could have a number of different representation in
>>> different formats, as we do in RDF land regularly )
>>> ...
>>> What is wanted is something that does what 303 does, but returns the content immediately.
>> Right -- to short-circuit this, in the TAG f2f this morning, I offered
>> the following paraphrase for the 2xx proposal:
>>  A 2xx response code signals all and only the short-circuiting of a
>>  303 response, with the content of what a GET to the Location header
>>  of the 303 would have had, and a Content-location header giving what
>>  would have been the Location of the 303.
>> So no new 'semantics', in the sense that whatever you believe 303
>> means wrt what the relation between what you originally asked for, and
>> what you _eventually_ get, holds for 2xx between what you originally
>> asks for and what you get _immediately_.
> Sounds good. I think one should perhaps also speak about the meaning of the
> headers. Should they not also be interpreted as if they had been returned
> on a request on the Content-Location URL had it been requested directly?
> This is important for the Web-Linking RFC, for example
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5.1
> [[
>  By default, the context of a link conveyed in the Link header field
>    is the IRI of the requested resource.
> ]]

This may be a bit mad but...

what if the content type of the returned representation was
"message/http" <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec19.html>?

In that way, you could supply both initial request and redirected
request headers without ambiguity.


> Btw, I wonder if a 3xx code would not be more
> appropriate. 3xx indicates to all that we are in
> the redirect space, which may be an important intuition worth
> holding onto.  Anyway, whatever is decided it would be
> a great step forward.
>> ht
>> --
>>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>>                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>> [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 13:22:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:23 UTC