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

Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:34:04 -0400
Message-Id: <F4CCC1EB-CA47-4BFF-87D5-344882A154A2@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>

On Nov 5, 2010, at 11:42, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> 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.

Hmm. I don't think that's so. "If I can GET it *and it returns a 200*, it is a document (an information resource)". Is that not so?  At least, that is in accordance with http-range-14. 

The "document" statement would not apply to a new status code until such a statement was or was not made in a spec. 

Sent from my iPhone

> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:36:02 UTC

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