- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:25:00 -0500
- To: ext Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 28, 2005, at 15:41, ext Dan Connolly wrote: > > > ... if the TAG's recent > decision on httpRange-14 becomes the consensus of the community, > then the community will conclude based on the 200 responses > that seem to come back that it denotes an information resource. > > I think it's plain that Mark is not an information resource, > so there's something of a contradiction, or at least a potential > contradiction, here. > Which is precisely why the particular use of 200 vs. 303 based on the nature of the identified resource should be a best practice and not an architectural requirement. Cheers, Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 14:27:05 UTC