On Nov 5, 2010, at 11:42, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > David Wood wrote: >> On Nov 5, 2010, at 08:37, Nathan wrote: >>> Ian Davis wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> To aid discussion I create a small demo of the idea put forth in my >>>> blog post http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary >>>> Here is the URI of a toucan: >>>> http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan >>> Ian, where's the demo of /toucan#frag so everybody can see that you can use >>> 200 OK *and* keep the graph clean? will you give it fair air time in the >>> (non-)debate? will you show us a comparison of the two and benefits of each? >>> >>>> does this break the web and if so, how? >>> Of course it doesn't break the web, anybody who says that being HTTP >>> friendly breaks the web is clearly wrong. >>> >>> Wrong question, correct question is "if I 200 OK will people think this is >>> a document", to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is a :Document. >>> >> Agreed. That's my problem with this approach. > > 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.
Hmm. I don't think that's so. "If I can GET it *and it returns a 200*, it is a document (an information resource)". Is that not so? At least, that is in accordance with http-range-14. The "document" statement would not apply to a new status code until such a statement was or was not made in a spec. Regards, Dave -- Sent from my iPhone > > Best, > > Nathan
