- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:35:29 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> Christopher Gutteridge wrote: >> >>> One last comment, it's a shame we use a code meaning "See Other" >>> >>> You could get a lot of useful mileage out of a 3XX code meaning "Is >>> Described By" >>> >>> >> and what if you got two of those 3XX's chained, what would be being >> described? >> >> -> GET /A >> -< 30X /B >> -> GET /B >> -< 30X /C >> -> GET /C >> -< 200 OK >> >> does /C describe /A or /B ? > > /B (assuming 30X = 303) Sorry I meant 30X to be a new status code meaning "Is Described By". That said, 303 doesn't mean that /C describes anything, it just indicates that the requested resource does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred by the server over HTTP. > Can you offer an interpretation otherwise? Well, what if it describes /A, or something else entirely, or nothing at all? It seems like a tall ask for a server responding to one URI to say what another URI is (specify that another URI describes something) - perhaps the weakness of the "see other" statement is an architectural strength in the web. Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 21:36:29 UTC