Print

Print


On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Thingy identifiers (http URIs) SHOULD (not MUST) be bound to descriptions
>> identifiers (http URIs) via HTTP 303 redirects.
>
>
> Agreed. Best practice (e.g. SHOULD) is 303. 2NN doesn't have sufficient
> traction to make it through the IETF, and there's enough pushback to the
> redirect adding latency and thereby cost that HTTP-Range-14 is going to be
> with us for a long time yet.
>
> None of which is any reason not to separately identify the things
> themselves.
>

In my opinion hash URIs is an alternative that is easier to deploy:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri

We are using "one (optional) RWO per document" approach with "#this"
as fragment identifier:
Document URI: /container/item
RWO URI: /container/item#this

That way the RWO is not directly accessible over HTTP (the fragment
identifier is invisible to the server), but it still is identified and
described in the document.

Martynas
graphityhq.com