W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > December 2009

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

From: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:24:16 -0500
Message-ID: <e9dffd640912080924r3d02a887r8fec9ff3b606b42e@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content
> RDF to be returned instead.

How is that information communicated to the world?  Is it documented
somewhere, or expressed in-band?  If not the latter, then I'd say
that's not passable because, from a REST POV it's not respecting the
hypermedia constraint.  I'd suggest returning a Link header using the
"alternate" relation type, e.g.

GET /user/23 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Accept: application/rdf+xml

-->

HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml
Link: <http://example.org/user/23.n3>; rel="alternate"; type="text/n3"
Link: <http://example.org/user/23.html>; rel="alternate"; type="text/html"
...

Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:24:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:24:57 GMT