Hi all, 303 seems to be preferred for Linked Data / RDF:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#r303gendocument There's an alternative to 303 which got renewed interest lately. It's explained here: http://blog.iandavis.com/2010/11/04/is-303-really-necessary/ Recent discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Mar/0115.html JC On 1 August 2013 21:26, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > On our WMF/WMDE Wikidata coordination call, Daniel suggested we > revisit bug 44098 [1], asserting that /entity/Q1234 (for example) > should trigger a 303, not a 302 HTTP status code. > > In reading the HTTP spec for this, it would appear that 303 expressly > prohibits caching the response[2]. I'm not sure if that's going to be > a problem, since I don't know if we do any 302 response caching (note > it's just the 303 redirect itself that can't be cached, not the > target). However, the spec is also pretty ambiguous about whether 302 > or 303 is more appropriate. > > At any rate, Daniel was concerned that this has been an issue for a > while, but the only artifact I'm seeing of active conversation on this > topic is bug 44098, which is closed. Daniel, to make sure we track > this, assuming we don't quickly come to a resolution in this thread, > could you file a new bug requesting the 302 response be updated to > 303? > > Thanks > Rob > > [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/44098 > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.3.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-tech mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech _______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
