Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

David Wood wrote:
> 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. 

How's this then, "if the response has a message-body with a media type, 
then it is a message with a media type" - any better/clearer? don't 
think this is 200 specific..

Best,

Nathan

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:42:12 UTC