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

Re: 200 OK with Content-Location might work

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:05:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD552B6.5040905@webr3.org>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
CC: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Mike Kelly wrote:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14
>> snipped and fuller version inserted:
>>
>>   4.  If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI
>>       is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response
>>       asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource
>>       identified by the Content-Location URI.  However, such an
>>       assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other
>>       means (not defined by HTTP).
>>
>>> If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
>>> then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the
>>> information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and
>>> further clarified in the entity body itself through something like
>>> isDescribedBy.
>> I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe
>> possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when Content-Location is
>> there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented by some
>> statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html link element)
>> to assert the same.
>>
>> Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?).
>>
>> Nicely caught Mike!
> 
> +1 This is precisely what we need.

The jury's still you on this one though, see:

   http://markmail.org/message/u4yctkaj2i3pms2o
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 13:07:18 UTC

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