Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> 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".)

Hmm, then I am puzzled. Does 303 redirection really imply that the  
server **does not have** a transferable representation? Surely 303  
redirection is used under other circumstances than this, circumstances  
which have nothing whatever to do with http-range-14 and were being  
used before the http-range-14 issue was even raised? No?

Pat

>
> Best
> Jonathan
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 16:04:52 UTC