- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:32:18 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Larry writes ... "Suggest "No, by definition": Define "information resource" as a resource in which it is reasonable to expect to be able to retrieve a representation. " This is a usecase for the LinkHeader to indicate related information about the resource. All the best, Ashok Larry Masinter wrote: > "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 >
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 23:34:04 UTC