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

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:31:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4B1E8D5E.9030302@webr3.org>
To: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
CC: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Mark Baker wrote:
> 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"
> ...
> 

already doing the aforementioned with the Link headers :) however raises
another question; is this okay in HTML

<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml"
href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF XML" />
<link rel="alternate" type="text/rdf+n3"
href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF N3" />

?
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:32:11 GMT