- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:09:50 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Rees writes:
> The main problem I see is "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." which directly
> contradicts the httpRange-14 resolution.
Doesn't contradict it as far as I can tell. Â It would perhaps be
better if it said "the server does not have a representation for the
requested resource that can be transferred. . .", but that doesn't
change the condition, just makes its server-depenence clearer.
> Suppose I have an ontology that defines some number of URIs
> (i.e. tells you, as best it can, what they should refer to). The
> URIs are not hash URIs. Now I am deploying a server for those
> URIs. The TAG tells me that I can use 303, but HTTPbis tells me I
> can only do a 303 if the server doesn't have a representation of the
> referred-to resource. How on earth am I, the server administrator,
> supposed to decide that question for every resource?
Simply determine whether if you _didn't_ give a 303, would your normal
URI->representation mapping give a result or not.
> I have to do a cross product: For each representation that I have,
> and for each resource in the ontology, is the representation a
> representation of that resource?
Reading the proposed text that way seems sea-lawyerish in the
extreme. Would you be happier if the same text as is used in 8.4.5
*404 Not Found* was used, i.e.
303 response to a GET request indicates that the server has not
found anything matching the request-target.
?
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKnXF+kjnJixAXWBoRAtUNAJ0TjNoj8g0j8PgXRavZ6RAJbTbgjACfcGXo
uPsGef67yEXBOqdfioSEomc=
=TB7C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:10:42 UTC