On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Sergio Fernández < sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > first I would like to say that this is an interesting question. > > On Fri, 06-06-2008 at 05:25 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > The 302 says the resource can be found elsewhere for the moment. > > So it is supposed to be the same resource. > > That is not correct. That HTTP dialogue only says that > in http://www.example.org/home.asp you can find an alternative > representation of http://www.example.org/. But nothing more > about http://www.example.org/home.asp. I don't see how your interpretation "you can find an alternative representation" is supported by the HTTP/1.1 spec. In fact section 10.3.3 doesn't use the word "representation" once. I also don't see any reason why one would want to interpret it this way. The need to avoid equating the source and target resources of a 302 sounds legitimate, but I'm not sure why such an equation would be forced if non-IRs were allowed at the other end of the 302. I certainly interpreted the spec a different way, and am depending on the ability to do a 302 to a 303, so I confess I have a stake. In any case it is clear that the HTTP spec is not really serving us very well as its language around resources, requests, servers, and representations was not written with non-IRs in mind. I see that this is an open TAG issue [*]. Since SWIG email gets a bad email triage outcome for me (very sorry) and possibly other TAG members, one might consider moving this discussion to www-tag so that the TAG can keep track of it more easily. Jonathan [*] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 ISSUE-57
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 11:25:10 UTC