W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:15:48 +0000
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <872EE9D9-2492-46AA-BCC0-0C91C8075336@cyganiak.de>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>


Forgive me for being honest.

I would prefer that the TAG considers the future of the web, instead  
of wasting time in discussion of hypothetically existing obsolete  

The burden is on you to give a few examples of clients that don't  
support 303, and are widely used to access the kind of resource for  
which httpRange-14 matters. Also, in case you should find that such  
clients are actually still in use today to do SemWebby things, then  
please explain why we shouldn't just ask their operators to upgrade  
their obsolete software into the third millenium.

FWIW, RoyF's proposed new definition of the 303 code from the HTTP  
issue tracker [1] doesn't include the backward compatibility clause.  
Do you think he was wrong in dropping it?

Evidence please.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i70

On 30 Nov 2007, at 13:06, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> 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 16:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:54 UTC