Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> 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.

Did you check the HTTP request? #frag isn't included, it's chopped off 
before sending, those three requests resulted in the following 3 URIs 
being requested:

http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf

no frags, un-mooted.

Best,

Nathan

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:02:47 UTC