- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:40:59 +0000
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
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