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

On Nov 29, 2007 5:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:

> Can you elaborate?

I'd like to provide accessibility to as many clients as possible,
hence I would like to support user agents that don't understand 303,
hence I may use 302.

I discussed this in some detail on #swig last night:

http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-11-29.html#T21-23-09

It eventually moved into the territory of considering the whole
httpRange-14 question, but the summary of the 302 vs. 303 portion is
that my reading of RFC 2616 is consistent because serving a blanket
rather than conditional 302 is the obvious low cost solution to the
problem of interoperability mentioned.

Apart from that objection, I think the only thing that this depends on
is the existence of a single non-303 supporting client. There's no
formal way to refute someone's requirements, which is why I was able
to answer the quite simple "Yes." as an intrinsically well-formed
reply to your question :-)

See the #swig logs for all of the considered meta-questions though.
There's more to this than meets the eye.

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/

Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 13:06:38 UTC