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

RE: Dereferencing HTTP URIs (redux?)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:16:40 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230903c30dc0149da1@[]>
To: "Rhys Lewis" <rhys@volantis.com>, "'W3C-TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>

>Hello Mark,
>Sorry for the tardy reply. I've been on vacation for the last week or so.
>Actually, there is a newer version of the draft [1].
>All the drafts produced so far are 'editor's drafts', and as such do not
>represent consensus, either within the TAG or from the broader community.
>They are, however, firmly rooted in ***the notion of using 303 as one way of
>indicating some level of relationship between resources***

For the record, what I was suggesting in


was that ***this*** is how the 303 decision should NOT be described, 
i.e. as a form of 'signalling' anything about resources. It raises 
all sorts of issues (how to interpret the signal, why this kind of 
signal, how the signal can be recorded or archived, are response 
codes properly used for such signals, etc.) which are interminable to 
debate and may be unanswerable, and are better deflected or never 


>. How much can be
>inferred from the use of 303 is part of the debate about the approach.
>Best wishes
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
>>  On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
>>  Sent: 05 September 2007 02:12
>>  To: W3C-TAG
>>  Subject: Dereferencing HTTP URIs (redux?)
>>  I'm not entirely sure of the state of this discussion (for
>>  which I apologise), but perusing
>>  <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/
>>  httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14> (which I understand
>>  reflects, more or less, current consensus) leads me to be
>>  somewhat concerned.
>>  I've always been uncomfortable with the 303 solution that the
>>  Semantic Web world has come up with for the "non-information
>>  resource" problem. Inferring that two resources are related
>>  in a fairly fundamental way because of a redirect between
>>  them is IMO bad for two reasons;
>>  1) Re-defining the semantics of a core element in a protocol
>>  that's been widely deployed for more than a decade will
>>  surprise and displease some people.
>>  2) The draft finding makes it a "good practice" to use 303,
>>  when in fact metadata about the relationships between
>>  resources may be available in much more efficient fashions.
>>  For example, there's always site metadata, link headers, etc.
>>  I'm sure this has been raised on www-tag before; I just
>>  wanted to voice my concerns and then go hide under a rock again :)
>>  --
>>  Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC