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

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:47:51 +0000
Message-ID: <6myBPFu33P8MFw+I@light.demon.co.uk>
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
In message <20101126214726.GX54400@styx.org>, William Waites 
<ww@styx.org> writes
>So taking a cue from this thread, I've implemented something that I
>think is in line with the original suggestion for a new dataset that
>I'm working on. If you request, e.g.
>    http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB8102507
>with an Accept header indicating an interest in RDF data, you will get
>a 200 response with a Content-Location header indicating that what is
>returned is actually the GB8102507.rdf document. It seems to me that
>this is enough information that a client needn't be confused between
>the document and the book, "A good man in Africa". There is
>foaf:primaryTopic linkage in the document that should also adequately
>explain the state of affairs.
>However it seems that some clients are confused -- tabulator for
>instance as was pointed out in irc the other day.
>My question is, should I change the behaviour to the standard 303
>redirect or leave it as a stake in the ground saying that this is a
>reasonable arrangement?

Works for me (with my home-grown forwarder which allows me to access 
Linked Data resources by URL via XSLT's document() function - chuffed 
about that.)

Richard Light
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2010 12:49:57 UTC

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