[sc34wg3] Fwd: [httpRange-14] Resolved
Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:32:18 +0200
interesting news from httpRange-14 below.
Would be interesting to apply that to subject address vs. subject
Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From: email@example.com
> From: "Roy T. Fielding" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: June 19, 2005 6:25:42 AM GMT+02:00
> To: W3C TAG <email@example.com>
> Subject: [httpRange-14] Resolved
> As everyone here knows, the TAG has spent a great deal of time
> discussing the httpRange-14 issue, as described at
> I am happy to report that we came up with a reasonable
> compromise solution at the recent TAG f2f meeting at MIT.
> <TAG type="RESOLVED">
> That we provide advice to the community that they may mint
> "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this
> simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:
> a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
> 2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
> is an information resource;
> b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
> 303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified
> by that URI could be any resource;
> c) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
> 4xx (error) response, then the nature of the resource
> is unknown.
> I believe that this solution enables people to name arbitrary
> resources using the "http" namespace without any dependence on
> fragment vs non-fragment URIs, while at the same time providing
> a mechanism whereby information can be supplied via the 303
> redirect without leading to ambiguous interpretation of such
> information as being a representation of the resource (rather,
> the redirection points to a different resource in the same way
> as an external link from one resource to the other).
> Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer
Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT'