W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Call for proposals to amend the "httpRange-14 resolution"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:47:22 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>, SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1331218042.2875.5183.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 16:08 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> In my view, if a GET for a URI returns content then it is a web document (or information resource, if you prefer). Using 204 and Link: just fits in better with how I understand the web.
> > 
> > Just to be clear, *which* web document or IR? That is, how do you feel
> > about the Flickr and Jamendo cases, where the URI is used to refer to
> > an IR described by the content retrieved using GET, but is not similar
> > to the content retrieved using GET?
> That sounds like it is consistent with a 303 response but not to a
> 200-x, according to what http-range-14 *ought* to have said. Which
> was, of course, that a 200-x response means that the URI denotes *the
> IR that emitted the response*, not just some IR or other. (What an
> incredible example of a fumbled ball.)

It's true that the language of the httpRange-14 resolution[1] is
ambiguous in that regard.  But did anybody actually interpret it in any
other way?  I always thought that in cases like Flickr and Jamendo they
did not misinterpret the httpRange-14 resolution, they just ignored it
or were unaware of it.  Certainly folks like Ian Davis are well aware of
the httpRange-14 rule, but have suggested that the rule could be ignored
or modified in the case where the response carries an RDF document:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:34 UTC