- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:52:55 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 16:43 +0000, Nathan wrote: > I've implemented content negotiation as follows: > where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23 > when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept > header kicks in, if any of the RDF formats are specified and data > exists then serialized RDF in the requested format is returned; > > if one of the HTML types is requested then an HTML document > (essentially the "page" is returned. > > in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content > RDF to be returned instead. > > passable and usable? An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI <http://example.org/user/23> supposed to identify? If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically problematic. Why? Because a web server should never respond "200 OK" to a request for a URI identifying a person, unless it intends to physically chop the person up and pass him/her down the wire to the receiving user agent. If the URI <http://example.org/user/23> is supposed to identify, say, a person's profile, and you have a different URI to represent the person themselves (e.g. <http://example.org/user/23#me>) then the connection negotiation setup you describe is fine. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 16:53:32 UTC