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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:32:58 -0600
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Tim Bannister <isoma@jellybaby.net>, SWIG Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DE87F25B-16C2-4607-9E14-0F1073854DCE@ihmc.us>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>

On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:47 AM, David Booth wrote:

> 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?  

Apparently so, in that when I have used it in what seems to me like the obviously correct way, I have been rapidly corrected. And I have to admit, it would have been so obvious and simple to have said this, that the fact that it was not said should be presumed to be deliberate. 

Pat


> 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:
> http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/   
> 
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 00:33:31 UTC

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