Re: HTTP URIs and authority

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Unless you can come up with a *new* argument that is not already
> found in one of the following threads
I will read them later and respond if there is any....
> then this discussion is just another waste of time.  The 303
> solution exists only for the sake of those resource owners that
> wish to make the distinction.  It has no need of an agreement from
> anyone else, nor does it have any effect on Web architecture,
> and it need not be implemented by people who don't share the
> desire for such a distinction.  It simply exists for those who
> believe they have a need for it, whether they actually do or
> not, and it isn't up to us (or anyone else) to decide that need
> for them when it's their own URIs that are being defined with
> a given set of semantics that they can control, even if that
> notion of control is only a fantasy that might become untrue
> over time.
But what distinction are you referring here? I assume it is information 
resource vs. non-IR?

Personally, I don't have any problem with that.  I hold the same opinion 
as yours. On various mailing lists, I was telling people that IR vs. 
non-IR (and subsequent 200 vs. 303) is an engineer but not ontological 
issue, choose which ever way that suits them. 

The current thread starts when Jonathan Rees and Allen Ruttenberg ask 
TBL if we can infer anything about the resource from HTTP response 
code[1]. And, I think the root cause is the "httpRange-14", don't you 
agree?  303 doesn't hurt but gives us nothing in return except 
compounding issues.  I did not have anything new.  But, I wish TAG 
rewrite the solution and scratch off the attempt to define *information 
resource*.  The web works just fine without them.


Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 09:53:15 UTC