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

Re: Is 303 really necessary - demo

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:01:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD4386B.6080009@webr3.org>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
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

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