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

Re: [VM] TAG clarification on 302 vs 303, PURLS and more...

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:13:22 -0500
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060123211322.GA16345@postdiluvian.org>

* Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com> [2006-01-23 16:00-0500]
> 
> 
> > From: Alistair Miles
> > . . .
> > Ralph raised the point that simply asking OCLC to change 302 
> > to 303 for all responses by the PURL server is not a 
> > reasonable solution, because a 302 "Found" response code is 
> > actually quite appropriate for the majority of purl.org URIs. 
> 
> Yes.  Maybe purl.org could offer registrants the choice when a URI is
> registered, to indicate whether they want their URI to forward using 302
> or 303.

It ought to be possible for folks to change their mind later. 

The PURL software is in Perl and freely downloadable from 
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/purl/download.htm
(hmm I thought it was Perl, but I guess Iremembered wrong, they
have precompiled version for various Unix variants - maybe it bundles
Apache?).

If someone had the cycles to write a (hopefully small and easy to 
review) patch for the PURL code, maybe purl.org would be more 
likely to make the change. I'd love to take a look but don't have
time right now. Anyone else feeling purlish?

Dan
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 21:13:27 UTC

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