- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:08:36 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Why 303:? >>> But... >>> 3) It is non-trivial to set up via Apache >> >> Hmm. More details please. (Not pushing back, really want to know.) > > here's an example, the FOAF .htaccess file: > > http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaf/trunk/xmlns.com/htdocs/foaf/0.1/.htaccess Well, this is a good start at a conversation. But help me to understand what exactly what the objection is. The lines that are not 'Redirect 303' directives perform functions that are not related to delivering 303s for the ontology terms, so they are not relevant for answering the question of what is non-trivial. The easiest solution is to use a RedirectMatch one-liner, but either FOAF is being scrupulous and wants to issue immediate 404s for invalid terms, or there is some other reason to use a long list of Redirects that is specific to their setup. With RedirectMatch I don't see what is non-trivial. So for the benefit of doubt let's assume that scrupulous immediate 404s is considered to be a requirement. With a long list of individual Redirects the only difficulty I see is adding to the list of terms in the Apache config file as the set of terms in the ontology itself grows. This can be done either manually or via script. I can see that either way would be annoying. Is this annoyance what people are objecting to? Thanks Jonathan
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 16:09:07 UTC