- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:40:52 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 2010-11 -05, at 12:04, Jonathan Rees wrote: > For 303, the question is whether anyone defended the prohibition on > 2xx when the referent is not an "information resource". > > Jonathan I am convinced that that argument is not the relevant one and leads to people trying to define Information Resource from first principles, which is a terrible angles and pins I find it more useful to think about the question of what the relationship is between the thin the URI identifies and the stuff returned -- and that is that it is the content of the thing identified by the URI. To people can niggle about "Well, a person can be a message because they can have a tattoo of a poem on them" and instead of arguing whether a person can be an information resource, you just make sure that whoever seves the person up on a web server serves up their contents (here in the argument has to be the poem) if you server 200. It isn't what they are. 200 gives the relationship between them and the stuff in the body. So if you want to give information *about* th person, by this new system you would do 303 or 208, the latter meaning "Here comes stuff you may find interesting *about* what you asked about". Tim
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2010 20:40:57 UTC