W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2014

Re: A new HTTP response code say 209

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:47:50 +0100
Message-ID: <52CEC4A6.30206@gmx.de>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Arnaud LeHors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
On 2014-01-09 12:57, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Henry Story writes:
>> It is a bad idea to put semantics into media types. Media types are
>> there to help interpret the representation coming back from the
>> resource, not for describing the resource itself ( since after all
>> the same resource could have a number of different representation in
>> different formats, as we do in RDF land regularly )
>> ...
>> What is wanted is something that does what 303 does, but returns the content immediately.
> Right -- to short-circuit this, in the TAG f2f this morning, I offered
> the following paraphrase for the 2xx proposal:
>    A 2xx response code signals all and only the short-circuiting of a
>    303 response, with the content of what a GET to the Location header
>    of the 303 would have had, and a Content-location header giving what
>    would have been the Location of the 303.
> So no new 'semantics', in the sense that whatever you believe 303
> means wrt what the relation between what you originally asked for, and
> what you _eventually_ get, holds for 2xx between what you originally
> asks for and what you get _immediately_.
> ...

I don't believe a new 2xx works for this case.

Existing clients will interpret an unknown 2xx as 200 (at least that's 
what they should do), so they would interpret the response as being for 
the request-URI, not something else.

If you really want to shortcut the 303->200 with a single response then 
you probably have to use a new 3xx code.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 15:48:23 UTC

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