W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Recommendations for serving backlinks when having hash URIs?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:58:01 +0000
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <FF6B27A6-28EC-4E1D-8A39-44C8C05D0024@cyganiak.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
On 10 Feb 2010, at 19:26, Nathan wrote:
>> From the client's POV, what's the difference between receiving a  
>> 406 (“I
>> don't have a format that you understand”) and a 200 with a non- 
>> supported
>> Content-Type (“Here, take a look at this thing in a format that you
>> don't understand”)?
> Ambiguity? a 4xx is a clear definate answer which can't be miss-read,


> and a 2xx indicates that you're giving back what the client asked for,

No. A 200 status code indicates that the response contains a  
representation of the resource named by the requested URI. It does NOT  
guarantee that the representation matches any of the Accept-* headers.

> which you aren't. I pretty much equate it with asking for a pair of  
> red
> socks and getting a response of "certainly sir" followed by some Y- 
> fronts.

Web servers don't respond with “certainly sir”, they respond with  
“this is what we've got, take it or leave it.” That's how HTTP works.

Also, you usually don't know what a URI identifies before you actually  
dereference it and see what comes back. When asking for red socks at  
the Y-front stall, you can't really complain…


> regards!
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 11:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:56 UTC