- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:56:11 -0800
- To: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
"There is real debate underway at the moment as to whether it is correct for a web server to return a 200 OK response code in a response to a request for a URI which identifies a non-information resource." Suggest "No, by definition": Define "information resource" as a resource in which it is reasonable to expect to be able to retrieve a representation. Then: * If it were correct to send 200 OK, then the resource would be an "information resource" and thus not a "non-information resource". * Thus, by elimination, it is not correct to return 200 OK for non-information resources. > "Therefore, the use of a URI to directly denote both an information > resource and a non-information resource should be viewed as a violation > of good practice, but *not* a violation of Web architecture." Use of a URI to directly denote anything is always a leap of faith. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net (I am not a number. I am also not my web page.)
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 22:56:59 UTC