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

Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work: But maybe it can be simpler?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:11:43 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD448DF.1000105@webr3.org>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
CC: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> I'm wondering about the implications of the httpRange-14 decision. In 
> summary, it says:
> 
> a) if it's 2xx, then it's an information resource;
> b) if it's 303, then it's whatever;
> c) if it's 4xx, then it's whatever.
> 
> First, I'm wondering what is the difference between b) and c). Second, 
> I'm wondering what it implies for other codes, such as 3xx and 5xx. And 
> what about URIs that do not resolve (like hash-URIs)?

4xx and 5xx is "don't know" - I think it's important to clarify that 
existential quantification isn't indicated by 4xx or 5xx - it simply 
means "Client Error" or "Server Error".

However..

> It seems to me that the absence of specification for these codes means 
> that the URIs may mean whatever. So, is it correct to interpret 
> httpRange-14 as follows:
> 
> a) if a GET request returns 2xx on a URI then the URI denotes an 
> information resource;
> b) a URI can be any kind of resource otherwise.

as Pat said.. "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"

303 is the only one we can use to denote something we determine.

^^ Resolution of httRange-14
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 18:19:35 UTC

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