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 09:25:50 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvoZcf=XtCPK5cyivt3qyUqBC=bKg0K=3xR2aJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That is what I would like to see and what I believe is possible. It's
> not current practice, so I'm seeking a change.
>

I am in violent agreement. It is long past due that someone made this
point. As has been said been said earlier, this simplifies
implementation, eliminates unnecessary traffic and is completely
transparent to linked data clients that do content negotiation. - BPA

>> Bradley P. Allen
>> http://bradleypallen.org
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 16:26:23 UTC

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