RE: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

A url referring to the entire digital contents of the library of congress?

-- Nick (sent from my mobile phone)

-----Original Message-----
From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>; "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>; "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; www-tag@w3.org
Sent: 7/11/09 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
> 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

What does "transferable" add to representation?
Would it be possible for someone to give an example of an
*un*transferable representation?

Thanks,

-Alan


>>> 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 Tuesday, 14 July 2009 23:26:25 UTC