- From: James Leigh <james-nospam@leighnet.ca>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:36:40 -0500
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 17:26 -0500, David Wood wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I've collected my thoughts on The Great 303 Debate of 2010 (as it > > will be remembered) at: > > http://prototypo.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-guide-to-publishing-linked-data.html > > > > Briefly, I propose a new HTTP status code (210 Description Found) to > > disambiguate between generic information resources and the special > > class of information resources that provide metadata descriptions > > about URIs addressed. > > > > My proposal is basically the same as posted earlier to this list, > > but significantly updated to include a mechanism to allow for the > > publication of Linked Data using a new HTTP status code on Web > > hosting services. Several poorly thought out corner cases were also > > dealt with. Hi David, Thank you for your post, it got me thinking more about this issue. After thinking this through a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that all 200 series response should indicate the requested URI is a document. It could also be something else, but at least the URI is a document. Let me quickly explain why. Any URL in my document browser's address bar must be a document. This is the way the Web has always worked. Whether it is 200, 203, or 210 the URI represents a document. URIs that response with a 303 (or any 300 series) are not documents. If I type in a URI and it gets redirected (via 303) the URI does not represent a document. This is a really simple rule that every Web architect can easily understand. Your proposal of using 210 for non-document resources breaks this simple rule and may create more confusion than the existing 303 recommendation for non-document resources. Thanks, James -- James Leigh Services Inc. http://www.leighnet.ca/ http://jamesrdf.blogspot.com/
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 13:37:14 UTC