W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > November 2006

content negotiation.

From: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:40:52 -0500
Message-ID: <34b5049c0611140940i65d268f4kb079ebd51bb2ce0a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

At http://metadataregistry.org we've implemented a variation of recipe
#4 in the cookbook (Extended configuration for a 'slash namespace',
using a single HTML document) [1], but are generating the documents
dynamically. At some point (soon I hope) we intend to implement some
flavor of Recipe 6 by adding a SPARQL endpoint.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#recipe4

The discussion threads related to the 'cookbook' and content
negotiation that Alistair mentioned...

AW: Content negotiation flamewar (was: Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Nov/0101.html

"Hash URIs" and content negotiation
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Nov/0055.html

Note that the original message in the earlier thread contained:
"...let's say I want to serve both RDF and HTML descriptions of John.
That is, both formats should be available from http://example.org/
john, depending on the request's Accept: header. How to do this?

a) Just return the requested type of content right at http://
example.org/john

b) Redirect to two different URLs, depending on the requested type,
e.g. http://example.org/john.html and http://example.org/john.rdf

I notice that the SWBP Vocabulary Recipes [1] suggest b). I have a
hunch that a) is problematic because it's a bit ambiguous, http://
example.org/john#me could refer either to John, or to an anchor
within an HTML page, if there's no 303 redirect in between. So, is
only b) allowed, or is a) fine too?

Comments?

Cheers,
Richard

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#recipe3"
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 13:44:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:26 GMT