Pat Hayes wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
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.
Yup I think that is what the TAG finding carefully says, whilst "On
www-tag we have 6 years of impassioned defense of the 200-means-web-page
story and hash URIs"
Perhaps the TAG haven't made the "impassioned defense of .. hash URIs"
part clear?
Nice description though Pat, "the 200 code amounts to a claim that HTTP
has over its denotation. And the 303 cancels that claim" is quite clear :)
Best,
Nathan
