Re: draft HTTP 209 draft spec review

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> Yves,
>
> I found it hard to think of other good reasons for using HTTP 209 except 
> for saving a round-trip. The ?don?t change the URL bar? is a bit of a 
> reach. If you can think of one, let me know.

Having a specific code here is mostly for efficient signalling, but in the 
case of LDP (as it started there), the signalling can be done in many 
ways, so either 209 has a real value, or  if it is just a way of 
conflating 303+200 it is not really useful.

And on a side note, the URL bar issue (related to bookmarking/sharing) was 
documented in http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-cuap-20030128#cp-bm-neg

> I actually think the 303+200 definition is unhelpful for the general 
> case. It sort of works for rel=describedby, but only when the originally 
> requested resource is a non-information resource. But if you?re
> requesting an information resource and wanting to get its description, 
> or its provenance, or a related package, then the original response 
> could have been a 200. The real distinguishing feature is the inclusion

Or if it's a scaled-down version, for the picture example we discussed 
during a f2f, it might even be a "203 Non-Authoritative Information", that 
might be used for the point 4 about package of content.

In fact if the requested resource is or not a non-information resource, 
the end result is the delegation to the resource pointed in CL.


>>> I?d appreciate a second pair of eyes before we officially forward this
>>> on to Eric Prudhommeaux as a consensual TAG review.
>>
>> I would also be happy if the primary goal stated by the document was not
>> "saving one round trip", especially if we decide to use 209 for other
>> "related" use cases, as we discussed during the f2f.
>>
>> Thinking about it, 303+200 should be
>> 209, with a Location: equal to Content-Location:
>>
>> That leaves open definition of 209 where Location: is different from
>> Content-Location: and lead to a more generic definition of 209 which would
>> 303 + a body which about what was requested, but not the result of
>> dereferencing the URL present in Location:
>>
>>
>> --
>> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>>
>> ~~Yves
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 19:21:13 UTC