Re: Indicating a resource does not exist

Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> Thu, 20 January 2011 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF8C3A701E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLTpURI7WbPy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867B03A6FDE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Pfxfp-0002lj-7Y for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:47:49 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nathan@webr3.org>) id 1Pfxee-0001ov-Ha for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:46:36 +0000
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.82.88]) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nathan@webr3.org>) id 1Pfxec-0003Gh-HV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:46:36 +0000
Received: (qmail 21283 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2011 16:45:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (86.133.149.132) by p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.88) with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2011 16:45:01 -0000
Message-ID: <4D38666D.600@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:44:29 +0000
From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Reply-To: nathan@webr3.org
Organization: webr3
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <4D382FED.4080004@webr3.org> <AANLkTi=6L7YZP=qjyUXoBYyO-Cgwkkfe1ytNLGjYxH7-@mail.gmail.com> <4D384740.3080706@webr3.org> <AANLkTi=vUZax4CX28763DHyVTsc-9WhgSrvZ8ya+msZg@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikb6ypYn7sNQzB6c-=YOhaREEB1_GXqyimTAwMT@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikb6ypYn7sNQzB6c-=YOhaREEB1_GXqyimTAwMT@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none
X-SPF-Guess: neutral
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Pfxec-0003Gh-HV d08f0daeeaf3c4dab1d3f617dfc7728d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Indicating a resource does not exist
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4D38666D.600@webr3.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10063
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Pfxfp-0002lj-7Y@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:47:49 +0000

Hi,

Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Which is surely all that the server can say?  The resource might exist in
> the future. It may have existed in the past, but when in the past? Certainly
> not before 1994...

Okay, I can live with "doesn't exist at the time of this request", 
that'll work.

> A server that supported Memento [1] might be able to say that it *didn't*
> exist at a particular time, but that's not the same as "doesn't,didn't and
> never will exist".

Was looking for "doesn't and didn't exist (to this servers knowledge)", 
not the never will exist.

Thanks all.

> Given the lack of the time dimension in HTTP without Memento, 404 seems the
> correct status code.
> 
> Rob Sanderson
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> 
> 1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-memento/
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>> Joe Gregorio wrote:
>>>> What's wrong with 404 Not Found?
>>> The best you can conclude from that is "don't know" the state of the
>>> resource, or if there is one.
>> It's not clear why you think that's all you can conclude.  I would
>> have concluded that the origin server couldn't find a resource by that
>> identifier at the time of the request. Maybe I'm not understanding the
>> nuance of "doesn't exist" vs. "not found".  404 is saying it doesn't
>> exist *at the time of this request*, right?
>>
>> --tim
>>
>>
>