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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:55:45 -0500
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1290203745.4776.6652.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 07:26 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[ . . . ]
> To conclude, I am saying:
> 1. No new HTTP response codes
> 2. Web Servers continue to return 200 OK for Document URLs 
> 3. Linked Data Servers have option handle Name or Address
> disambiguation using 303 redirection for slash URIs
> 4. Linked Data Servers have option to be like Web Servers i.e. do no
> Name or Address disambiguation leaving Linked Data aware user agents
> to understand the content of Description Documents
> 5. Linked Data aware User Agents handle Name or Address
> disambiguation.
> IMHO: when the dust settles, this is what it boils down to. On our
> side, we're done re. 1-5 across our Linked Data server and client
> functionality, as delivered by our products :-)
I think the above reflects reality, regardless of what is recommended,

 - some Linked Data Servers *will* serve RDF with 200 response codes via
slash URIs, regardless of what is recommended;

 - some User Agents *will* still try to use that data;

 - those User Agents may or may not care about the ambiguity between the
toucan and its web page;

 - those that do care will use whatever heuristics they have to
disambiguate, and the heuristic of ignoring the 200 response code is
very pragmatic.

David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 21:56:15 UTC

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