W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:52:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD4282F.80504@webr3.org>
To: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
Mike Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Mike Kelly wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> That assertion would be wrong if the response contained a
>>> Content-Location header pointing to the specific document resource.
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154
> Sorry, I don't follow. How is that relevant here?

I said, if you 200 OK to </toucan> then it's a document.

You said not if you include a Content-Location ("The value of 
Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity" as per RFC-2616)

So I pointed to the ticket that said that's been removed from HTTP-bis 
and I'd point you to:

   "For a GET or HEAD request, this is an
    indication that the effective request URI identifies a resource that
    is subject to content negotiation and the representation selected for
    this response can also be found at the identified URI."

As in under HTTP-bis (which is to clarify RFC2616) then what you 
asserted is wrong and what I asserted is correct.. if I understood your 
point that is.

Unless of course you're going down the it's a message, not a document, 
and the message payload is a representation of the requested resource 
route - in which case, meh that's the representation of the document, so 
still true.

Any clarifications / corrections?


Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:53:33 UTC

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