Re: Is 303 really necessary?

On 11/19/10 4:55 PM, David Booth wrote:
> 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,
> because:
>
>   - 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,

Great! We're going to point back to this post repeatedly in the future :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen