Re: ISSUE-57: The use of HTTP Redirection

Rhys Lewis wrote:


> Let me try and tease this apart to see if I understand why you think this
> is a problem.
> In Tim's example, the CERN 303 redirect simply says there is no
> representation for the early day WWW URI. That URI identifies a
> non-information resource. 
I don't think that's a claim you can make (ie. that it *IS* a 
non-information resource).
> There is no representation available. The nature
> of the URI that CERN gives back in the 303 is completely indeterminate. It
> could be an information resource, or a non-information resource, or could
> lead to another redirect, for example. (And of course it could lead to a
> plethora of other response codes indicating various form of error that
> I'll ignore here).
> Assuming the URIs are set up correctly, and the URI provided by CERN in
> the 303 does indeed identify an information resource, a representation can
> be retrieved and everything has worked out as intended.
> Surely the criterion for minting URIs is straightforward. If the URI is
> for an information resource (provides representations) you return a
> suitable representation, if you have one, and a 200 response coed (let's
> ignore content negotiation for the purposes of this discussion). If,
> however, the URI is for a non-information resource, you have two options.
> You can return a 303 and a helpful URI. You're not allowed to return a
> representation according to HTTP. 
Really? Does the HTTP spec actually say that?

> Best wishes
> Rhys 

Hewlett-Packard Limited 
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 09:21:34 UTC