On 2012-03 -25, at 14:39, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > (commenting now as a technical contributor to the TAG) > > On 3/25/2012 5:47 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> a 200 response to a probe URI no longer by itself implies that the probe >> URI identifies an information resource or that the response is a >> representation of the resource identified by the probe URI; instead, >> this can only be inferred if the probe URI is the object of a >> ‘describedby’ relationship or the target of a 303 redirection. > > I'm not taking a position pro or con on the overall proposal, but the part > about "target of a 303" seems wrong to me. The rest of the proposal, good or > bad, follows the tradition that those who host resources are responsible for > the information conveyed in the HTTP responses generated. > > In the case where your site does a 303 redirect to my URI, you seem to be > committing that >my< resources is an information resource. How can I know > who's out there doing 303's to my resources, and how can you take > responsibility for characterizing my resource that way?
Well that seems easy. x 303 -> y means "y is a description of x" and therefore y is an information resource. Tim
