Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Le 05/11/2010 18:01, Nathan a écrit :
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Le 05/11/2010 16:42, Nathan a écrit :
[skip]
Sadly your proposed 210 still has it, the true problem isn't a status
code thing, it's an "if I can GET it, it's a document", hence the
earlier outlined problems with 303 as it stands, still the same
problem.
So, you are against hash URIs? Because if you can GET a hashless URI
with 200 OK, then put a hash behind it and you can GET the resulting
URI with a 200 OK too.
According to httpRange-14, if the HTTP response code for a given URI
is 2xx, then the URI denotes an information resource. Quote:
"""
a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
is an information resource;
"""
GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine -> 200 OK -> it's a document!
GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine#me -> 200 OK -> it's a
document!
GET http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf -> 200 OK -> it's a
document!
So your argument is moot since it is going against your own
recommendation.
Did you check the HTTP request? #frag isn't included, it's chopped off
before sending, those three requests resulted in the following 3 URIs
being requested:
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf
no frags, un-mooted.
Ah yes, forgot this small detail :p.
So obviously, a hash URI cannot resolve to 2xx since it cannot resolve
at all! But, in the end, isn't it quite the same principle: I use a
distinct URI that eventually resolves to the same document?
It's the critical difference in all of this:
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine.rdf
both "can be resolved"
http://liris.cnrs.fr/~azimmerm/antoine#me
cannot be resolved
URI resolution is essentially:
dereference( <uri>.toAbsolute() );
Which gives us the simplicity and semantic indirection which we need.
Use frags, forget HTTP, know that <uri>#frag is never going to be a
document (unless you explicitly "say" it is).
Best,
Nathan
