- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:24:50 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "Sergio Fernández" <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7 Jun 2008, at 12:24, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> 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. Okay, so you do a 302 to a 303 to a description of the original resource. Why does this require a particular interpretation of the redirect? A 303 doesn't tell you the relationship between the original resource and the target, it only means that the server thinks that people who want the original resource might find the target interesting. I think throwing in a 302 doesn't change anything, no matter if you interpret it as “ask over there for the representation” or “this guy over there is same as me”. So I find your practice consistent with Sergio's interpretation of 302. > 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. Good observation. Lawyering over the language used in the HTTP spec won't be too helpful here. Richard > > 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 14:25:30 UTC