RE: Dereferencing HTTP URIs (redux?)

Hello Pat, 

Thanks for this. As it happens, I replied to Mark before I read your
description of the 303 mechanism.

Over the last couple of months, different views have been expressed about
the way to think of the 303 mechanism. FWIW I'm personally much more
comfortable with the notion of it being a legitimate pattern for the
existing HTTP mechanism. I'm hoping we'll be able to come to consensus in
the TAG on this particular point, among others, at next week's F2F.

Best wishes

Rhys

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] 
> Sent: 12 September 2007 17:17
> To: Rhys Lewis; 'W3C-TAG'
> Subject: RE: Dereferencing HTTP URIs (redux?)
> 
> >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Actually, there is a newer version of the draft [1].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
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0017.html
> 
> 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 raised.
> 
> Pat
> 
> >. How much can be
> >inferred from the use of 303 is part of the debate about the 
> approach.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >Rhys
> >
> >
> >[1]
> >http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-08-31/HttpRa
> nge-14.htm
> >l
> >
> >>  -----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 Thursday, 13 September 2007 06:44:35 UTC