W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: different publish RDF in section 2.4.2

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:41:01 +0100
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0ACB4340-3755-4474-AA74-0FBC89041BFD@bblfish.net>
To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>

On 23 Nov 2011, at 13:34, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:

> On 23.11.2011 13:25, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 11/23/11 6:00 AM, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>>> 1) 'type="rel" type="application/rdf+xml"' is not valid, it should be:
>>> rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml"
>> I think its an "alternative representation" relation i.e., <link
>> rel="alternate" type={RDFformat} href={ResourceURL} ... /> .
> This interpretation is possible. Now it is only link to RDF/XML. What about Turtle?
> 
> <link rel="alternate" type="text/turtle" href="profile.ttl"/>
> or
> <script type="text/turtle" src="profile.ttl"></script>
> ?

yes, you can do that, but since rdf/xml is a MUST that is why we put that there at the moment,
and not every other format - but of course nothing stops people from doing it.

Perhaps it would be good to add the mime type for each format at the top of the format anyway, just
to help people implementing this, so they don't need to look around so much.

Henry

> 
> Best regards,
> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 12:41:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 November 2011 12:41:38 GMT