David Wood wrote:
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.
How's this then, "if the response has a message-body with a media type,
then it is a message with a media type" - any better/clearer? don't
think this is 200 specific..
Best,
Nathan
