- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:38:52 -0500
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, mark@coactus.com, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
Erik Wilde writes: > so you're interpretation of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ > httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14 is that it applies to any URI? I'm not sure that my interpretation is what matters here, but FWIW: yes, it applies to any URI. First of all, the original httpRange-14 issue [1] was "What is the range of the HTTP dereference function?", and there's essentially no mention of URI schems. The document you point to is a draft TAG finding that has no status as a best practice or recommendation from the TAG, but FWIW the meat of what it says is, IMO, in section 4.1 [2]. I think you'll find that the discussion there is pretty much all about the HTTP protocol, and the definition of the status codes, and I happen to agree that the status code definitions are what's important here. Quoting from the draft finding: ---- Response Code 200 According to the HTTP specification, when a code of 200 is received in response to an HTTP GET request, it indicates that "an entity corresponding to the requested resource" has been returned in the response. The contents of this entity is what we understand as a representation of the resource. This correspondence between a resource and a representation is defined in [AWWW] as characterising an information resource. Consequently, we can assume that if we receive this particular response code in response to an HTTP GET request, we have also received a representation and that the URI references an information resource. ---- So, to the extent you take [2] as representative of the TAG's position on httpRange-14, it is grounded in the definition of HTTP status code 200, the semantics of which are independent of URI scheme. If you're returning a 200, you're saying that the "entity corresponds to the resource", and I think it's fair to say that's what the TAG says can't be the cases for resources that aren't information resources. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14#sec-http-rep-assoc -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> 01/07/2010 04:57 PM To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, mark@coactus.com, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org> Subject: Re: non-HTTP URIs in HTTP requests hello. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > I still think it's > unlikely that, per httpRange-14 resolution, 200 responses will be > appropriate for geo-scheme URIs. so you're interpretation of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14 is that it applies to any URI? the title "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" to me suggests it doesn't, and it's mostly a document for the semweb world where people wanted to have a well-defined way of how to use HTTP URIs for ease of implementation, without sacrificing the guarantee that everything can be accessed via HTTP. my view of that document is that it only applies to HTTP URIs, but i don't think it clearly says what it is about. cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 23:36:53 UTC