On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Nathan wrote: > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +0000, Norman Gray wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> >>> On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote: >>> >>>> http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary >>> I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution >>> in the thread so far. Apologies if I've missed it, or if (as I guess) it's >>> deducible from someone's longer post. >>> >>> vvvv >>> httpRange-14 requires that a URI with a 200 response MUST be an IR; a URI >>> with a 303 MAY be a NIR. >>> >>> Ian is (effectively) suggesting that a URI with a 200 response MAY be an >>> IR, in the sense that it is defeasibly taken to be an IR, unless this is >>> contradicted by a self-referring statement within the RDF obtained from the >>> URI. >>> ^^^^ >>> >>> Is that about right? That fits in with Harry's remarks about IRW, and the >>> general suspicion of deriving important semantics from the details of the >>> HTTP transaction. Here, the only semantics derivable from the transaction >>> is defeasible. In the absence of RDF, this is equivalent to the >>> httpRange-14 finding, so might require only adjustment, rather than >>> replacement, of httpRange-14. >> Very nice. That seems like an accurate and very helpful way of looking >> at Ian's proposal. > > The other way of looking at it, is that the once clear message of: > > Don't use /slash URIs for things, use fragments, and if you flat out > refuse to do this then at least use the 303 to keep distinct names > > has been totally lost. > > The advice is not that /slash URIs are okay and use them if you like, it's > that they're not ok and you should be using #fragments. Don't dress the TAG > finding up in other words to make it seem more favourable than it actually is.
That isnt the way I read the TAG finding. I read it as simply saying that if you use a slash URI and you want it to denote something other than what it http-GETs, then use a 303 redirect. Because a slash URI which returns a 200 code is understood as being a name for the IR that it is connected to with HTTP; the 200 code amounts to a claim that HTTP has over its denotation. And the 303 cancels that claim, leaving it free to denote whatever y'all want it to denote, just like a hash name with a fragment. And thats all. Pat > > I think this needs to be made clear for all those who don't realise. > > Best, > > Nathan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
