- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:42:25 -0500
- To: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > With my HTTPbis WG chair hat on: > > While some aspects of this thread have been related to HTTPbis' > work, it appears that we've resolved that portion, and many of the > other messages are not on-topic. Agreed about the latter, but I do not accept that we have resolved the HTTPbis-relevant portion. The heated part of this thread began when I objected to Roy's proposed wording change on the grounds that the mere existence of a 200-level transmittable representation should not require that a 200-level response be returned. It seems to me, from the wording in the draft, that there could be circumstances in which a server has an associated resource, has a transmittable representation of it, and still is required (by http-range-14) to return a 303 response **because the URI does not denote that resource**. Now, I quite understand if the HTTPbis WG prefers to not use language like "denotes" in the spec. In which case, all that needs to be done is to simply not **require** that the presence of a transmittable representation requires sending a 200 coded response (equivalently, not specify that a 303 response means that no transmittable representation **exists**.) This is enough slack to allow a server to handle the case in question without violating http-range-14. Alternatively, it may be (cf my recent message to Richard) that the phrase "the requested resource" is **always** understood to refer to the resource that the URI denotes, or is intended to denote, even when this is not the resource that the URI resolves to. If this is the case, then my objection to the wording, above, no longer applies. But then I would ask that the spec make this point extremely clear somewhere in the text, preferably by stating it explicitly. I realize of course that this would require using the word 'denotes', though I note that this word has crept into the recent URI specification also. Thanks Pat Hayes
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:43:17 UTC