Re: Is 303 really necessary?

Nathan wrote:
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +0000, Norman Gray wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
>>> I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's 
>>> problem+solution in the thread so far.  Apologies if I've missed it, 
>>> or if (as I guess) it's deducible from someone's longer post.
>>>
>>> vvvv
>>> httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a 
>>> URI with a 303 MAY be a NIR.
>>>
>>> Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be 
>>> an IR, in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless 
>>> this is contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF 
>>> obtained from the URI.
>>> ^^^^
>>>
>>> Is that about right?  That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, 
>>> and the general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the 
>>> details of the HTTP transaction.  Here, the only semantics derivable 
>>> from the transaction is defeasible.  In the absence of RDF, this is 
>>> equivalent to the httpRange-14 finding, so might require only 
>>> adjustment, rather than replacement, of httpRange-14.
>>
>> Very nice. That seems like an accurate and very helpful way of looking
>> at Ian's proposal.
> 
> The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of:
> 
>   Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out
>   refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names
> 
> has been totally lost.
> 
> The advice is not that /slash URIs are okay and use them if you like, 
> it's that they're not ok and you should be using #fragments. Don't dress 
> the TAG finding up in other words to make it seem more favourable than 
> it actually is.
> 
> I think this needs to be made clear for all those who don't realise.

missed a bit.. "200-means-web-page", not: 200 might mean, you can think 
it may mean, may be an IR.

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 12:58:28 UTC