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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:07:12 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOzKjKps4_Dew5jtB--YM37SBcUFmTKg3Hq43W@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Basically what you are saying is: if I have a single URI that responds
to an HTTP GET with (X)HTML+RDFa by default, and supports other RDF
serializations through content negotiation, then all of that can be
done without recourse to a 303 redirect and should be perfectly
compatible with linked data best practice.

Is that correct?

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org



On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Giovanni Tummarello
> <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote:
>>> I think it's an orthogonal issue to the one RDFa solves. How should I
>>> use RDFa to respond to requests to http://iandavis.com/id/me which is
>>> a URI that denotes me?
>>>
>>
>> hashless?
>>
>> mm one could be to return HTML + RDFa describing yourself. add a
>> triple saying http://iandavis.com/id/me
>> containstriplesonlyabouttheresourceandnoneaboutitselfasinformationresource
>>
>
> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying in my blog post.
>
>
>> its up to clients to really care about the distinction, i personally
>> know of no useful clients for the web of data that will visibly
>> misbehave if a person is mistaken for a page.. so your you can certify
>> to your customer your solution works well with "any" client
>>
>
> Good to know. That's my sense too.
>
>
>
>> if one will come up which operates usefully on both people and pages
>> and would benefit from making your distinction than those coding that
>> client will definitely learn about your
>> containstriplesonlyabouttheresourceandnoneaboutitselfasinformationresource
>> and support it.
>>
>> how about this ? :-)
>
> Sounds good to me :)
>
>>
>> as an alternative the post i pointed you earlier (the one about 203
>> 406) did actually contain an answer i believe.  406 is perfect IMO ..
>> I'd say a client which will care to make the distinction would learn
>> to support it as in my previous example.
>>
>
> I'll look into that.
>
> Ian
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC