RE: ISSUE-57: The use of HTTP Redirection

Whoops, thanks Roy. I was in too much of a hurry.

I meant to say that you don't get a representation with a 303.

And as far as what can or cannot be inferred from a 303, this is an item
I'm hoping to get consensus on at next week's TAG F2F. As I replied to Pat
earlier, I prefer the inference the way that you and he have both
articulated it.

Best wishes
Rhys 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
> Sent: 13 September 2007 16:29
> To: Rhys Lewis
> Cc: 'Stuart Williams'; 'Ed Davies'; 'Technical Architecture Group WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-57: The use of HTTP Redirection
> 
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Rhys Lewis wrote:
> > Ok, that's a good point. What it actually says is
> >
> > "The response to the request can be found under a different URI and 
> > SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource."
> >
> > My interpretation is that when you get a 303 you don't get 
> a response 
> > to the request you made. Otherwise, there would be no point in 
> > redirecting. I perhaps stated this a little strongly, but I believe 
> > that what I wrote is in the spirit of the intent of 303.
> 
> You get a response to the request you made.  It may not be 
> the response that some applications of HTTP will be looking 
> for, ultimately, but that is outside the scope of HTTP.
> 
> Anyway, this is dancing around the point.  It is false to say that a
> 303 response implies that the URI identifies a resource that 
> is not an information resource.  All it implies is what the 
> 303 says -- if you want information about this resource in 
> the form of a representation, then look over there.  We don't 
> need to speculate any further about the resource that has not 
> been represented.
> 
> ....Roy
>

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 16:03:27 UTC