- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:39:07 +0000
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Sean, > From: Sean B. Palmer > [ . . . ] > Yet doesn't the httpRange-14 issue as a whole hinge on the > interpretation of the following passage from RFC 2616? > > 3.2.2 http URL > > The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the > HTTP protocol. Just because 2616 says that 302 may be used instead of 303 when interop with pre-HTTP/1.1 clients is a concern, I do not think that means that the *Semantic Web* needs to permit 302 instead of 303. I think the Semantic Web's use of URIs and HTTP is *layered* on top of the old-fashioned Web's use of URIs and HTTP. As such, it is normal that the Semantic Web layer will impose greater constraints, and have its own specialized conventions for how particular 2616 mechanisms should be used. The use of 303 when a URI denotes a non-information resource is one such example. Because it is layered, there is no requirement that the *Semantic Web* layer permit 302 instead of 303". However, it does mean that if there were pre-existing uses of 303 that are not compatible with the Semantic Web's use of 303, then the Semantic Web layer would effectively be deprecating those uses. I'm not aware of any such uses. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 20:43:00 UTC