- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:33:00 -0400
- To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Technical Architecture Group WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
> From: Richard Cyganiak > [ . . . ] > Yuck. That's not coherent at all. Let's say I send an HTTP GET to > some URI, and the response is 404. Clearly, I have connected to > something, that thing has received my HTTP request, and generated an > HTTP response. I'd say that's good evidence for the existence of an > HTTP endpoint associated with that URI, even though the URI > might not actually identify any resource. No, that's not correct. The request is *not* sent to the original URI. It is sent to the server specified at the *beginning* of the URI, and that server may be responsible for responding to URI requests for many different paths. For example, if you try to dereference http://foo.example.com/bar.html the request is sent to foo.example.com, (which corresponds more to the URI http://foo.example.com/ ). Thus, it is still sensible to say that http://foo.example.com/bar.html has no "HTTP endpoint" even if foo.example.com responds 404 to the request for http://foo.example.com/bar.html . David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:35:01 UTC