W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:50:05 -0400
Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Message-Id: <D1986E64-C590-4AEA-97C5-EB19B8A9C8A5@gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:59 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> We have no idea. It could be anything, just as a 303 redirect tells  
> us nothing about what the URI is obliged to denote. Http-range-14 is  
> silent on both of these cases. It only specifies that in the case of  
> an unhashed URI returning a 200 response, the URI is understood to  
> denote the resource that emits the response.

So an IR is the sort of thing that can emit a response.
Which means it can't be the Microsoft Word document I just worked on,  
since as far as I know, such things aren't capable of emitting anything.

Do I have this right?


Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 05:50:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:20 UTC