- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:50:21 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
I suggest that the TAG issue an adjunct to their finding for issue httpRange-14, given that RFC 2616 notes that 302 may be used in place of 303 for backwards compatibility: Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303 status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the 302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react to a 302 response as described here for 303. - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt ยง10.3.4 And therefore resources denoted by HTTP URIs which return 302 codes when deferenced MAY be non-information resources, such as the moon or a car or the colour purple. The following is consistent with web architecture, i.e. RFC 2616 and the TAG's findings: $ curl -Is http://inamidst.com/misc/moon HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon <http://inamidst.com/misc/moon> a :NaturalSatellite . :NaturalSatellite owl:disjointWith webarch:InformationResource . Though RFC 2616 and the TAG finding already state this case's legality, I believe it would be useful to users of the Semantic Web etc. were the TAG to note that it is permissible to denote a non-information resource with a 302-returning HTTP URI. Thanks, -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 14:50:33 UTC