W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

[VM] HTTP Cookbook review - a response

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:54:43 +0100
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, "Miles, AJ (Alistair" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>, swick@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060110165443.GA2308@baker>

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:19:29PM -0500, David Booth wrote:
> G2.  Regarding the sentence:
> [[
> Note also that PURL servers use a 302 redirect code, and therefore
> ontologies with slash namespaces using PURL servers will not strictly
> conform with the TAG resolution on httpRange-14 [@@TODOREF].
> ]]
> I think it would be best to avoid giving advice that violates the TAG's
> httpRange-14 decision[5], and as I note below, I think some of the
> recipes currently violate the TAG's decision.

The question is: How should the HTTP Cookbook handle purl.org
URIs given that the purl.org servers, by design, return a
302 response code instead of the 303 code required by the TAG
decision on httpRange-14?  David Booth suggests we avoid giving
advice that does not conform; Andreas Harth suggests putting the
issue into an appendix.

The TF feels it is important to address this issue somewhere
in the Cookbook, especially as purl.orgs are used by important
vocabularies such as Dublin Core and RSS.  We think the problem
should be described in the body of the paper, though we may
push some of the detail into an appendix.

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 16:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC