- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:39:53 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 2012-03 -25, at 13:32, David Booth wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:35 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> [ . . . ] how about a header >> >> 200 OK >> Document: foo123476;doc=yes >> >> which means "Actually the URI you gave is not the URI of a this document, >> but the URI of this document is foo123476.html (a relative URI). >> >> - This is the same as doing a 301 to foo123476.html and returning the same content. > > Did you mean 303? Yes - scuse me. > >> - Non-data clients will ignore it, and just show users the page anyway. >> - Saves the round trip time of 301 >> - Avoids having the same URI for the document and its subject. >> >> This will dismantle HTTP range-14 a bit more, but still never give the same >> URI to two things. >> It would mean code changes to my client code and just a reconfig >> change to Ian's server. > > If URI owners do not want or are unable to configure their servers to > serve 303 responses I don't see how they'll want or be able to configure > their servers to add a special header. Sometimes a header is easier to configure than the return status code. But some pushback for 301 came from people making large bespoke server systems, who have total control over the headers. If they really can't configure the server at all, they are operating in a traditional web architecture, and they can use #. (Hash URI should still be considered the first choice, and the way to go for newbies making their first RDF. I only use hash URIs. My code only generates hash URIs.) Tim
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 17:40:11 UTC