Re: Is 303 really necessary?

On 11/19/10 5:57 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 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 :-)
>
> I truly hope not, recognizing that some people *will* do whatever the 
> hell they please, doesn't make what they're doing a good idea, or 
> something that should be accepted as best / standard practise.

I am not implying that :-)

I am trying to say that 1-5 represent the landscape, and solutions 
simply operate within that reality. Next time these matters arise we can 
save time returning to 1-5.
>
> As David mentioned earlier, having two ways to do things is already 
> bad enough (hash/303) without introducing a third. 

There will always be many ways to skin a rat, Linked Data can't stop 
that reality.

> There's already been half a decade of problems/ambiguity/nuisance 
> because of the httpRange-14 resolution, ranging from technical to 
> community and via conceptual, why on earth would we want to compound 
> that by returning to the messy state that prompted the range-14 issue 
> in the first place?

I don't see how I am advocating that. There are no mandates in 1-5, 
again that outlines how things are. Server, Servers and User Agents, or 
User Agents can make decisions.

>
> Fact is, the current reality is primarily due to the fact there is so 
> much confusion with no single clear message coming through, and until 
> that happens the future reality is only likely to get messier.

It won't get any messier since 1-5 simply implies that there isn't 
anything to change re. HTTP response codes. Developers should make 
choices and live with the consequences, as they do every day :-)


>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>


-- 

Regards,

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

Received on Saturday, 20 November 2010 01:56:21 UTC