RE: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303

> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>
> Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> > Re:
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0048.html
> >
> > Yes, big improvement.  May I suggest two editorial changes:
> >
> > 1. s/The Location URI indicates/The Location URI SHOULD indicate/
>
> I'm not sure how this is better. Do you want to indicate that
> there may
> be edge cases where the Location URI does indicate something else?

Not by intent, but yes.  My thinking was that the owner of the URI originally requested may not be the same as the owner of the redirect URI, and hence the first owner might not have control over whether the resource at the redirect URI really *is* "descriptive of the requested resource", even though it is thought to be.

BTW, I do notice one other thing.  I suggest changing the following sentence:

    A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
    resource does not have a representation of its own that can be
    transferred by the server over HTTP.

to:

    A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the requested
    resource does not have a representation of its own, available
    from the request URI, that can be transferred by the server
    over HTTP.

The reason is that if the same resource were requested via a different URI, it might indeed provide a representation of its own (if it were an information resource).  The original text would have prevented 303 URIs from identifying information resources, rather than permitting them to identify any kind of resource.

Thanks


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 15:26:50 UTC