Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

Le 05/11/2010 16:42, Nathan a écrit :
> [skip]
>
> 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.

So, you are against hash URIs? Because if you can GET a hashless URI 
with 200 OK, then put a hash behind it and you can GET the resulting URI 
with a 200 OK too.

According to httpRange-14, if the HTTP response code for a given URI is 
2xx, then the URI denotes an information resource. Quote:

"""
    a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
       2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
       is an information resource;
"""

GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine -> 200 OK -> it's a document!

GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine#me -> 200 OK -> it's a document!

GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf -> 200 OK -> it's a document!

So your argument is moot since it is going against your own recommendation.

I think that Ian's example with the Toucan is exactly the same as using 
hash URIs, that is, you have a different URI than the actual file URL 
for the "thing" but both the document's URL and the thing's URI are 
serving the same content.

So, since Ian's idea is as much (or as little) deviant compared to 
httpRange-14, there are 2 solutions: everybody sticks strictly to 303, 
or we open up the options to 303 OR Hash-URIs OR Ian's solution. 
Additionally, having a supplementary code like David Wood suggests may 
help too.


Regards,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:58:49 UTC