Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On 2009-08 -02, at 09:54, Pat Hayes wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> ...
>>> hope I do not misrepresent anyone here.) Apparently, therefore,  
>>> two people both quite expert in reading the HTTP spec do not  
>>> interpret the phrase "requested resource" in the same way, leaving  
>>> me and I suspect others in a state of complete confusion. ...
>> We have multiple issues open with respect to cleaning up that  
>> terminology. I would recommend to delay any new discussion until  
>> we're done with that (which *should* be the -08 versions of the  
>> drafts).
> OK, great. Sorry if my insistence on this point has caused needless  
> feather ruffling. For the record, let me outline the case that  
> raises the central issue. No need to reply.
> 1.  identifies  
> Richard Cygniak, the actual human being.
> 2.   A GET request on 
> richard_cyganiak  resolves to some HTTP endpoint (server, whatever;  
> I'm not sure of the right terminology here. I mean, the network  
> entity which functionally handles the request and emits an HTTP  
> response, and whose behavior is governed by the HTTP specs. I gather  
> that this may not be identical with the http:resource (information  
> resource) associated with it: the latter may lie just behind the  
> endpoint, which constitutes an "interface" to it. (?))
> 3.  There is an information resource, R, at this endpoint. (Again,  
> I'm not sure of the right terminology. By R I mean a thing which has  
> a transmittable representation in the sense of the HTTP specs, so  
> that it is possible for the endpoint to send a 200-coded response to  
> a GET request with a URI which identifies R.)
> 4. To emphasize, this means that there are two resources in the  
> picture: Richard Cygniak, who is not an information resource or an  
> http:resource (with the current wording, ie a network object or  
> service) and has no transmittable represetnation; and R, which falls  
> under both categories, and does have a transmittable representation.  
> The URI identifies the first and resolves to (an endpoint interfaced  
> to) the second.
> OK, so now the questions that need to be resolved are (at least :-):
> A. Is this possible? (If not, how is it to be prohibited, since  
> owners of URIs can, it seems, set up such a situation.)

Peer pressure from people whose system can't use the server.

> B. Under these circumstances, is the "requested resource" R, or is  
> it Richard Cygniak? (If the former, what is the relationship, if  
> any, between the 'requested' resource and the 'identified' resource?)

The 'requested' thing is presumably means that denoted by the URI in  
the GET request.

> C. Does http-range-14 require that the endpoint emit a 303 response  
> under these circumstances? (If the answer is no, then some  
> explanation is needed.)


> Pat

Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 19:55:16 UTC