W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: HTTP 302

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:35:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFBC8A1.5090107@webr3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC