W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2013

Re: A new HTTP response code say 209

From: Daniel Appelquist <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:04:32 +0000
To: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Arnaud Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CED8D6CB.3499C%daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>
Hi Tim -

For today’s call we have a technical discussion on the Push API teed up
(http://www.w3.org/wiki/TAG/planning/2013-12-19-TC).  We have a tentative
session on “data on the Web” organized for the London f2f with guest Phil
Archer coming along. Could we include this topic in that discussion?

Thanks,
Dan


On 19/12/2013 16:55, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
>We need a new 20X status code (we refer to it as 209, though that can be
>regarded as a placeholder) to allow information relating to and useful
>but different from the original thing.
>
>209 could be deemed to be definitely equivalent  equivalent to 303 "see
>also" to another URI which gives 200.  The Location: y   header from the
>303 would be the same as the one used in the 209 to identify the URI of
>the meta resource.
>
>The fact that existing LD systems use 303 and LDP systems are thinking of
>it is a serious architectural problem as the extra round trips.
>
>The payload is machine readable in each case I am interested in.
>
>Example uses:
>
>- You asked for massive data, I give you instructions for doing a query
>for a part of it
>- You asked for a large thing, this is the first page of it.  See
>Proposal [1]
>- You asked for some thing with URI u, I give you a document about it
>which has a different URI. Classic linked data use case see eg [2]
>
>Possible process paths:
>
>- Just define 209 in the spec, as an unauthorized extension of HTTP.
>People do this with headers and HTML tags all the time.  Do this with
>IESG blessing.   This may not be deemed an appropriate process with in
>the IETF which has change control.
>
>- Start an IETF effort to define 209 from the ground up, ASAP.  Problems:
>the LDP working group's lack of confidence that the process would be
>timely and would not be waylaid by people who did not have/understand the
>needs of the linked data community.
>
>- Reserve the 209 code with a an internet draft -- and then code it into
>current code, then other of the
>
>- Etc ...  many other combinations
>
>Can we discuss this at the next call?
>Sorry about the short notice.
>
>Timbl
>
>Tim
>
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.04#Proposals_regar

>ding_Paging_.26_209_vs_200
>
>[2] http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc12

>
>
>
>
>
>

This electronic message contains information from Telefonica UK or Telefonica Europe which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email. Switchboard: +44 (0)113 272 2000 Email: feedback@o2.com Telefonica UK Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX Registered in England and Wales: 1743099. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85 Telefonica Europe plc 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX Registered in England and Wales: 05310128. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85 Telefonica Digital Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX Registered in England and Wales: 7884976. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2013 17:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:00 UTC