- From: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:40:52 +0000
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Richard Cyganiak: >> Your argument seems to be that 303 redirects are too weak; >> that the redirect doesn't imply anything more than >> "try-over-there". Stuart Williams: > There are some who make that complaint about 303. They > want to be able to make stronger assertions at least about > what is at the end of the redirect chain - in particular > they like to be able to assert that some (architectural) > conformance requirement has been violated *if* following > the chain does not yield a description of (amongst other > things) ?u. IMO 303 does not and cannot give such an > assurance. Richard Cyganiak: >> I would like to know why more than this >> weak implication is necessary on the transport layer. Stuart Williams: > Others will have to speak up on that... but roughly > AFAIUI its about what it would mean to conform and > detecting when a source has failed to conform. Give or take a few quibbles, 303 and rdfs:seeAlso are pretty much equivalent. If such "conformance" is really required then wouldn't there also be a need for a strong version of rdfs:seeAlso with similar guarantees? If such a property hasn't been missed for a while then surely that's an indication that this conformance rule is not required. Ed Davies.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 10:41:18 UTC