- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:42:02 +0000
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
David Wood wrote: > On Nov 5, 2010, at 08:37, Nathan wrote: > >> Ian Davis wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my >>> blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary >>> Here is the URI of a toucan: >>> http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan >> Ian, where's the demo of /toucan#frag so everybody can see that you can use 200 OK *and* keep the graph clean? will you give it fair air time in the (non-)debate? will you show us a comparison of the two and benefits of each? >> >>> does this break the web and if so, how? >> Of course it doesn't break the web, anybody who says that being HTTP friendly breaks the web is clearly wrong. >> >> Wrong question, correct question is "if I 200 OK will people think this is a document", to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is a :Document. >> > > Agreed. That's my problem with this approach. Sadly your proposed 210 still has it, the true problem isn't a status code thing, it's an "if I can GET it, it's a document", hence the earlier outlined problems with 303 as it stands, still the same problem. Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:43:20 UTC