atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
86 earlier messages
Dave ReynoldsNov 5, 2010 5:38 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 5:52 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 5:57 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:00 am 
Vasiliy FaronovNov 5, 2010 6:33 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 7:18 am 
David WoodNov 5, 2010 7:18 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 7:27 am 
Ian DavisNov 5, 2010 8:12 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 8:18 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 8:40 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 9:36 am 
Pat HayesNov 5, 2010 10:29 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 5, 2010 10:31 am 
NathanNov 5, 2010 10:37 am 
Hugh GlaserNov 5, 2010 10:50 am 
David BoothNov 6, 2010 1:42 pm 
Norman GrayNov 6, 2010 3:45 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 6, 2010 4:08 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:27 pm 
David BoothNov 7, 2010 10:28 pm 
Tore ErikssonNov 7, 2010 11:18 pm 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 12:37 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 2:11 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:40 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 6:42 am 
Norman GrayNov 8, 2010 7:51 am 
Toby InksterNov 8, 2010 8:03 am 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 12:34 pm 
Lars HeuerNov 8, 2010 1:17 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 1:35 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 8, 2010 1:50 pm 
David BoothNov 8, 2010 3:34 pm 
Tore ErikssonNov 8, 2010 5:51 pm 
Dave ReynoldsNov 9, 2010 6:36 am 
Lars HeuerNov 9, 2010 8:00 am 
Kjetil KjernsmoNov 10, 2010 7:13 am 
Jason BorroNov 11, 2010 11:47 am 
David BoothNov 18, 2010 2:10 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 19, 2010 4:26 am 
David BoothNov 19, 2010 1:55 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 19, 2010 2:07 pm 
NathanNov 19, 2010 2:57 pm 
Kingsley IdehenNov 19, 2010 5:55 pm 
Bob FerrisNov 26, 2010 6:15 am 
NathanNov 26, 2010 6:30 am 
David BoothNov 26, 2010 9:32 am 
David BoothNov 26, 2010 9:49 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 26, 2010 12:37 pm 
William WaitesNov 26, 2010 1:47 pm 
15 later messages
Subject:Re: Is 303 really necessary?
From:David Booth (dav@dbooth.org)
Date:Nov 8, 2010 6:40:00 am
List:org.w3.public-lod

Hi Norman,

On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 22:45 +0000, Norman Gray wrote: [ . . . ]

I take it that Ian is suggesting resolving the ambiguity he has created, and thus the need for any heuristics, by extending the notion of IR in such a way that a URI with a 200 response *is* an IR, *unless* dereferencing it returns RDF which (authoritatively) declares that the URI is a NIR.

I don't think that is feasible. After all, what's so special about RDF? And how would the client even know whether RDF were returned? Almost any serialization can be turned into RDF. Suppose XML is returned. Is that RDF? A GRDDL transformation can cause it to be viewed as RDF? And what about a plain HTML page? Surely in that case the URI would identify the web page. But what if there were some RDFa tags embedded? Suddenly it *doesn't* identify the web page? Even if the client ignores those tags?

No, I think it makes more sense to acknowledge that the ambiguity *has* been created by the server both returning the 200 response and sending a document saying that the URI identifies a toucan, but applications that are troubled by this ambiguity should use the provenance of the information to decide bits of information to use or ignore -- in this case ignoring the information given in the HTTP response code in favor of the information given in the RDF document.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.