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

Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 01:25:40 +0000
To: Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101109012540.0320e314@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:05:09 +0000
Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com> wrote:

> I wrote a short blog entry-like piece last night [1]. My basic point 
> being that I agree wholly with Ian's analysis but disagree with his 
> conclusions and I argue the case for a new HTTP status code.

I also had that thought. Instead of:

	200 OK

We'd have:

	250 This Might Do

I created a test script to play around with this idea a few days ago,
then promptly forgot all about it.

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/test-status-codes.cgi/250/This%20Might%20Do

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 01:26:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:06 UTC