- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:53:33 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
What's the difference between this and Content-Location (which I believe Ian suggested a year or two ago)? Best, Nathan Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > Jonathan, > > I have written the below idea up as a change proposal > http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/ChangeProposal25 > > The number "25" has no semantics. > > Tim > > On 2012-03 -25, at 12:35, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >> [...] the basic idea of giving a way of the server making it >> explicit that the URI identifies not the document but is subject, without the internet round-trip time of 303, >> is a useful path to go down. >> >> If Ian Davis and co would be happy with it, how about a header >> >> 200 OK >> Document: foo123476;doc=yes >> >> which means "Actually the URI you gave is not the URI of a this document, >> but the URI of this document is foo123476.html (a relative URI). >> >> - This is the same as doing a 301 to foo123476.html and returning the same content. >> - Non-data clients will ignore it, and just show users the page anyway. >> - Saves the round trip time of 301 >> - Avoids having the same URI for the document and its subject. >> >> This will dismantle HTTP range-14 a bit more, but still never give the same >> URI to two things. It would mean code changes to my client code and just a reconfig >> change to Ian's server. >> >> Tim >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 17:54:32 UTC