Re: HTTP Endpoints and Resources

Noah, David,

On 28 Sep 2007, at 23:17, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> David Booth writes:
>
>> I think it is true for a 303, because by redirecing you
>> somewhere else, the 303 is acknowledging that there is a
>> resource associated with the URI.
>
> Are you sure?  I think it's very important that we keep this  
> discussion
> grounded in the pertinent RFCs and specifications.  In this case,  
> RFC 2616
> says of status code 303:

FWIW, the proposed new 303 definition in the HTTP issue tracker [1]  
provides some backup for David's position.

Best,
Richard

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i70


>
> "10.3.4 303 See Other
>
> The response to the request can be found under a different URI and  
> SHOULD
> be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists
> primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to  
> redirect the
> user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute
> reference for the originally requested resource."
>
> That seems to me at best very ambiguous as to what a 303 warrants
> regarding the URI originally referenced.  So, you did a get to URI1  
> and
> got a 303.  The spec says "the response to that request is at"  
> URI2.  Does
> that clearly say that URI1 has been "assigned" (if you like that  
> term) and
> that it thus identifies a resource?
>
> I find the wording to be somewhat informal, and thus subject to  
> differing
> interpretations, but to me 303 is pretty broad in suggesting "you  
> might
> find joy over there".  That's about it by my reading.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2616.html
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 22:44:51 UTC