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

RE: Address Bar URI

From: Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:06:45 +0100
Message-ID: <7A44633A0AA27A4A98B94B10BDF0AC3554C44B@bbcxues27.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <public-lod@w3.org>
I'm not a massive fan of the 303 but I do think some of the inconvenience problems go away (at least for consumers and publishers, if not for source developers) if you separate out the 303 nir uri > generic ir uri (which is not content negotiation) from the generic ir uri > ir representations (which is)

see mails passim :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
Sent: Tue 10/18/2011 6:27 PM
To: Michael Smethurst
Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: Address Bar URI
 
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael Smethurst
<Michael.Smethurst@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't seem to be doing a such good job at lurking but I'd thought the
> current argument against fragment ids was you always get a 200 (so long as
> the information resource they hang off exists). So:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d#teddybearsandtrainsets
>
> returns a 200 but that programme has nothing to say about teddy bears and
> train sets

Thanks - I had actually heard this one before but it wasn't on my
list. I'll add it.

I'm still having a hard time being persuaded by this - i.e. the
inconvenience of poor misspelling detection outweighing the
inconvenience of the 303 redirect. I don't deny that this is real, but
I still feel I'm being asked to accept the seriousness of the problem
on faith.. (Again, this could be mitigated in Javascript, if it were a
serious issue.) Is this really the reason that so many people have
decided against hash? Surely I'm missing something else...

Jonathan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 18:07:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:17 UTC