- From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 06:32:32 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Hi @iherman, I think that the text we have at hand, being a W3C recommendation is perfect to assess this issue. 1. I would like to indicate that your interpretation of the text, refers **to the existance of Http URIs** and not to their dereferenciability. > That is not the way I read it. Authorities MAY create a HTTP URI; *if* they do, then there should be an additional mechanism. But the operative term is 'MAY'. However, in the definition of the WebResource, in the WA it is already imposed that the Resources MUST have IRIs. Meaning that for WA it is a must that all Resources have IRIs (<code>@id</code>) 2. The issue that I raise is that, _in the case when we have the Http URIs_ for the resources (IN WA we do have IRIs for all resources), than by using these URIs it **SHOULD be possible to dereferenciate the resources** (directly or indirectly). And I think this is perfectly inline with the W3C recommendation: > In addition, the URI owner SHOULD make the URI of an associated information resource available using the mechanism based on returning an HTTP response code of 303 to the original request._ 3. From logical point of view, I find it quite strange to claim that we are developing a standard for web annotations, that are using Web Resources, but it is optional to be able to access these resources. In other words, ... do we find it perfectly OK, that when the user accesses the target URL, to get an 404 Response? (I don't find it ok) -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/372#issuecomment-258072380 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 06:32:39 UTC