Re: httpRange-14 Adjunct: 302 is Valid for Non-Information Resources

Sean,

The section of RFC 2616 allows the use of 302 in place of 303 "when  
interoperability with [pre-HTTP/1.1 clients that do not understand  
303] is a concern".

Is it the case that your concern is compatibility with 10-year old  
HTTP clients?

Best,
Richard



On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:50, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> 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 10.3.4
>
> 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 15:56:19 UTC