W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2012

Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:50:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4F6F850D.2030900@arcanedomain.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>


On 3/25/2012 3:29 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> I assume it's the most common case, but my reading of 303 is that it's intentionally pretty vague. I read it as: "you might find something useful over here -- feel free to do a GET and see what happens". In fact, I'm not sure it's even clear that 303 targets need to be http resources at all. Is it provably wrong, e.g., to do a 303 redirect to a mailto URI?
>
> As Jonathan has written it, a 303 response or a Link: header with a describedby relationship indicates that nominal representations from the target of the link are nominal URI documentation carriers for the probe URI. That's a bit stronger than "you might find something useful over there".

Fair enough. I was referring to RFC 2616 definition of RFC 303, not the 
baseline from Jonathan. I'm not sure I understand Jonathan's wording well 
enough yet to comment reliably, but if it goes much beyond clarifying 
what's in RFC 2616 as to the semantics of 303, or illustrating particular 
usage patterns appropriate to metadata discovery, than I might have a 
problem with it too.

At least for the moment, I'm reluctant to change the RFC 2616 definitions 
of status codes that are already deployed, except where clarification is 
helpful. I'm fine with explaining how they can be used in ways consistent 
with the exiting definitions to achieve metadata discovery, and I'm also OK 
with proposing new status codes, headers, etc.

Noah
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 20:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:43 UTC