Re: Naive question on redirection.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Sergio Fernƒe�Bndez <
sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> first I would like to say that this is an interesting question.
>
> On Fri, 06-06-2008 at 05:25 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > The 302 says the resource can be found elsewhere for the moment.
> > So it is supposed to be the same resource.
>
> That is not correct. That HTTP dialogue only says that
> in ?ƒTƒ\http://www.example.org/home.asp you can find an alternative
> representation of ?ƒTƒ\http://www.example.org/. But nothing more
> about ?ƒTƒ\http://www.example.org/home.asp.
I don't see how your interpretation "you can find an alternative
representation" is supported by the HTTP/1.1 spec. In fact section 10.3.3
doesn't use the word "representation" once.
I also don't see any reason why one would want to interpret it this way. The
need to avoid equating the source and target resources of a 302 sounds
legitimate, but I'm not sure why such an equation would be forced if non-IRs
were allowed at the other end of the 302.
I certainly interpreted the spec a different way, and am depending on the
ability to do a 302 to a 303, so I confess I have a stake.
In any case it is clear that the HTTP spec is not really serving us very
well as its language around resources, requests, servers, and
representations was not written with non-IRs in mind.
I see that this is an open TAG issue [*]. Since SWIG email gets a bad email
triage outcome for me (very sorry) and possibly other TAG members, one might
consider moving this discussion to www-tag so that the TAG can keep track of
it more easily.
Jonathan
[*] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 ISSUE-57