- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:22:52 +0200
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
On 2011-08-29 17:33, Jonathan Rees wrote: > I've revised this document in place: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html > ... "The httpRange-14 resolution suggested the 303 redirect response to GET as a way out for those wanting to use hashless (fragment-free) URIs to meet need S1. The 303 status signals the absence of retrieval behavior for the URI. This method provides the desired syntax, but makes discovery more difficult than S2 because it's hard for some publishers to deploy and because of performance worries (typically two network round trips required instead of one per S2)." The last part might be fixable; a server can return the representation of the redirect target as payload, and by including a Content-Location header field the user agent could find out that it doesn't need to fetch the identified resource. Example: C: GET /foo HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com S: HTTP/1.1 303 See Other Content-Type: text/plain Location: /description-of-foo Content-Location: /description-of-foo This is the description of http://example.com/foo Note that the semantics for Content-Location have been clarified in HTTPbis, see in particular <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-16.html#identifying.response.associated.with.representation>. A small problem is that the description of 303 has: "Except for responses to a HEAD request, the representation of a 303 response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the Location URI." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-16.html#rfc.section.8.3.4.p.4> But that could be fixed. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 08:23:32 UTC