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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:37:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD440E2.3050306@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of:
>>
>>  Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out
>>  refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names
>>
>> has been totally lost.
>>
>> The advice is not that /slash URIs are okay and use them if you like, it's that they're not ok and you should be using #fragments. Don't dress the TAG finding up in other words to make it seem more favourable than it actually is.
> 
> That isnt the way I read the TAG finding. I read it as simply saying that if you use a slash URI and you want it to denote something other than what it http-GETs, then use a 303 redirect. Because a slash URI which returns a 200 code is understood as being a name for the IR that it is connected to with HTTP; the 200 code amounts to a claim that HTTP has over its denotation. And the 303 cancels that claim, leaving it free to denote whatever y'all want it to denote, just like a hash name with a fragment. 
> 
> And thats all.

Yup I think that is what the TAG finding carefully says, whilst "On 
www-tag we have 6 years of impassioned defense of the 200-means-web-page 
story and hash URIs"

Perhaps the TAG haven't made the "impassioned defense of .. hash URIs" 
part clear?

Nice description though Pat, "the 200 code amounts to a claim that HTTP 
has over its denotation. And the 303 cancels that claim" is quite clear :)

Best,

Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:38:52 UTC

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