- From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:21:57 +0000
- 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. David > 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