Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

On 2012-03 -25, at 14:39, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> (commenting now as a technical contributor to the TAG)
> On 3/25/2012 5:47 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> a 200 response to a probe URI no longer by itself implies that the probe
>> URI identifies an information resource or that the response is a
>> representation of the resource identified by the probe URI; instead,
>> this can only be inferred if the probe URI is the object of a
>> ‘describedby’ relationship or the target of a 303 redirection.
> I'm not taking a position pro or con on the overall proposal, but the part about "target of a 303" seems wrong to me. The rest of the proposal, good or bad, follows the tradition that those who host resources are responsible for the information conveyed in the HTTP responses generated.
> In the case where your site does a 303 redirect to my URI, you seem to be committing that >my< resources is an information resource. How can I know who's out there doing 303's to my resources, and how can you take responsibility for characterizing my resource that way?

Well that seems easy.

 x 303 -> y means   "y is a description of x" and therefore y is an information resource.


Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 19:37:41 UTC