- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 06:03:42 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding<fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > That's because you happen to be reading it differently than > what I was thinking when I wrote it. The sentence is a bit > ambiguous if you don't pay attention to what the second "that" > means. If it is reordered to say > > A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does > not have a transferable representation of the requested resource > and is instead redirecting the client to some other resource > for further information. > > then I think the objection is handled without watering down > the purpose of using the status code on a GET. > > ....Roy Excellent! The rewording you give above would be fine with me - I would be satisfied if HTTPbis said this, or something equivalent. (because then the choice to yield a 303 can be attributed to the server, and would not necessarily reflect on the nature of the resource - "the server does not have" vs. "the resource does not have".) Best Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:04:29 UTC