W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2010

Content negotiation: Why always redirect from non-information resource to information resource?

From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:46:17 +0100
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Cc: Vyacheslav Zholudev <v.zholudev@jacobs-university.de>, Florian Rabe <f.rabe@jacobs-university.de>
Message-Id: <201001270046.20333.ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Dear all,

  in the well-known guides on cool URIs and publishing linked data, there is
one thing I don't understand.  When doing 303 redirects, there are always
three URIs/URLs involved:

* U, the URI of the non-information resource (redirects depending on requested
  MIME type)
* U_R, the URL of the RDF information resource
* U_H, the URL of the HTML information resource

I do understand that it makes sense to have separate URLs for U_R and U_H.
Delivering everything, be it RDF or HTML, directly from U (which would
technically be possible) would impair cacheability.

But why can't we do without U_R and do it like this?

* If RDF is requested from U, it is directly served from U
* If HTML is requested from U, a 303 redirect to U_H is made.

I'd be interested in justifications for the above-mentioned best practice
(with 3 URIs/URLs) that are based on semantic considerations and on HTTP
architecture.  Restrictions imposed by Apache's standard plugins are not
relevant to me.

Cheers, and thanks in advance,


Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 23:46:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:02 UTC