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 robla@wikimedia.org 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 Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech