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)

"Hash URIs" and content negotiation

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://

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?



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:47 UTC