On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Jeni Tennison <j...@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> Where well-behaved sites will have to make a decision is whether to continue > to use a 303 or switch to using a 200 and including a 'describedby' > relationship. For example, we at legislation.gov.uk might be seriously > tempted to switch to returning 200s from /id/ URIs. Currently, anyone > requesting an /id/ places a load on our origin server because the CDN can't > cache the 303 response, so we try to avoid using them in links on our site > even where we could (and really should). Consequently people referring to > legislation don't use the /id/ URIs when what they are referring to is the > legislation item, not a particular version of it. If we switched to a 200, we > wouldn't have to avoid those URIs, which would in turn help us embed RDFa in > our pages, because instead of having a reference in a footnote contain > something like: [...] Sorry to be a broken record here, I must be really not be hearing what everyone is saying, but why don't you just use hash URIs? (Using the #it or #_ indirection pattern if necessary.) This is the received wisdom from the original semweb design, and they don't have any of the problems that 303s or 200s do. Jonathan