- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:11:37 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
OK, we're halfway into the change proposal call period, and (unless I've misunderstood or misremembered one of the submissions) no change proposal of the sort we requested, i.e. that addresses TAG ISSUE-57 (performance and deployability of 303s), has been received. I know criticisms of the baseline document, and suggestions for expanding or restricting its scope, have come in, but these are not nearly as interesting as solutions to the problem at hand. Once we know where to go with ISSUE-57 the document can be crafted to fit. If you intend to prepare something before the deadline I suggested (March 29) I would appreciate some advance warning; because if no proposals are going to be forthcoming, I will need to figure out what the TAG should talk about at its F2F April 2-4, and what approach we need to take to a problem that so many people *say* they care about, but so few care about *enough* to be willing to participate in this particular process. Here are the kinds of proposals I was expecting that have not come in yet: - those advancing the use of retrieval for delivering descriptions of what the URI is supposed to refer to (i.e. proposals to use 200 where 303 has to be used now) - those advancing non-200 alternatives to 303 that don't suffer its performance and/or deployment problems, e.g. HTTP extensions or /.well-known/meta/ - those advancing mixed 200/303 solutions There is some interest in strengthening (restricting) the use of 200 beyond what httpRange-14(a) says, but doing so would only provide additional motivation to solve ISSUE-57, it does not address the problem. I'm afraid this effort will founder for lack of involvement and traction both within and outside of the TAG. If you think a different process would work better, such as moving the work to a different venue, I am interested to hear proposals of that sort also. Thanks Jonathan On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote: > Concerns regarding the efficiency of 303 redirects and the difficulty > in deploying them on hosting services have been raised numerous times > since the TAG proposed the 303 redirect as a way to use "hashless" > URIs for semantic web and linked data purposes (i.e. beyond the > purposes of the hypertext Web). The TAG now seeks input from the > community in the form of proposals to amend the resolution in order to > address these concerns. Proposals may give new discovery techniques, > or take any other form that might help mitigate these problems. > > Please consult the following document for details of this call: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html > > (I will be re-posting this call to the semantic web and linked data > discussion lists in a few hours, after www-tag readers have pointed > out any egregious errors, and after I have had a chance to resubscribe > to the lists under my new email address, so that I have posting > privileges.) > > Best > Jonathan Rees
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:12:18 UTC