- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 16:29:18 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kamhayfung scripsit: > I personally prefer to see a complete list if possible in case some permutations of media types and profiles are invalid. In that case it seems that we cannot avoid combinatorial explosion of media types and profiles... And yes, there will definitely be cases where some media types are available in some profiles and other media types in other profiles. The case we have in the DNB is that data published in traditional library formats (MARC 21 and MARC-XML) will be available in one profile and data published in some serialisations of RDF will be available in two other profiles leading to the following combinations: Media Type | MARC-PROF-1 | RDF-PROF-1 | RDF-PROF-2 -|----------------|--------------|-------------- text/turtle | :x: | :heavy_check_mark: | :heavy_check_mark: application/ld+json | :x: | :heavy_check_mark: | :heavy_check_mark: application/marcxml+xml | :heavy_check_mark: | :x: | :x: application/marc | :heavy_check_mark: | :x: | :x: If we only give information about profiles in the link header, we effectively force the client to make another request to see which media types are available for that profile (or if the client is lucky, one of its preferred media types are available for the chosen profile). -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/785#issuecomment-492727180 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2019 16:29:20 UTC