- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:22:40 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>, www-tag@w3.org
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> > My glimmer of hope in all this is "303 See Other" redirects. It seems
> > reasonable to say that if you get a 303 response during a dereference
> > attempt then the URI *does*not*denote*a*response*point*. This gives
> > us a coherent universe of response points and other things (like
> > chairs), without resorting to using hash marks.
>
> So you are going to conclude from one instance of a 303 that this will
> be the behavior for all time? Especially since RFC2616 says "The 303
> response MUST NOT be cached." -Tim
Interesting point, but no, I'm just saying the client will be told by
the 303 about another source of information which is authoritative at
the moment. Of course, if it's authoritative for now and *it* says
(via RDF perhaps) that it's authoritative forever, then I guess one
could legitimately conclude it was authoritative forever.
-- sandro
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:23:19 UTC