Fwd: Is 303 really necessary?

Kingsley- I didn't say I had ever lost this option. My problem is that this
simpler option is not acknowledged as a legitimate best practice,
which it is, in my opinion. - BPA

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org



On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 20:41:11 UTC