Re: Is 303 really necessary?

On 11/4/10 12:25 PM, Bradley Allen wrote:
> 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
>
Bradley,

When did you loose this option? (X)HTML+RDFa is another mechanism 
structured data representation. One that doesn't mandate Apache (bottom 
line) for deployment. Just drop the resource wherever, and you're done 
re. your Web of Linked Data contribution.

303 redirection has never been a mandate. Separating Names from 
Addresses has, and should be a mandate -- assuming this is where this 
debate is headed.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen