Re: non-HTTP URIs in HTTP requests

Mark Baker wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > The
> > question is whether the GET method can be meaningfully 
> implemented on your
> > resource,
> 
> GET is, by design, uniform; it can be meaningfully implemented for all
> resources.  The same goes for most HTTP methods with the exception of
> a few defined by the *DAV specifications.

Yeah, you're right.  I guess intended by "meaningfully" was sort of "has a 
good shot at returning a 200".  I agree that's somewhat beside the point 
and generally too wooly.  Attempting a GET is reasonable on most any URI, 
I think, and running a server or proxy that returns at a 303  or even a 
404 or 4XX, etc. is indeed "implementing" the method.   I still think it's 
unlikely that, per httpRange-14 resolution, 200 responses will be 
appropriate for geo-scheme URIs.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Sent by: mark@coactus.com
01/07/2010 04:20 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Jan Algermissen 
<algermissen1971@mac.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: non-HTTP URIs in HTTP requests


Hi Noah,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> The
> question is whether the GET method can be meaningfully implemented on 
your
> resource,

GET is, by design, uniform; it can be meaningfully implemented for all
resources.  The same goes for most HTTP methods with the exception of
a few defined by the *DAV specifications.

> or more to the point, which status codes are sensible in in
> responses.

Those are also all uniform too AFAIK, but it's good to raise the
httpRange-14 issue (even though I disagree with its resolution).

Mark.

Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 21:51:19 UTC