- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:18:49 +0100
- To: Rhys Lewis <rhys@volantis.com>
- CC: 'Ed Davies' <edavies@nildram.co.uk>, 'Technical Architecture Group WG' <www-tag@w3.org>
Rhys Lewis wrote: [Offlist] <snip/> > 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? <snip/> > Best wishes > Rhys > > Stuart -- 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