- From: Michal Politowski <m.politowski@icm.edu.pl>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:09:55 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:15:28 +0100, Andreas Harth wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> On 12/17/19 7:06 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > The question is: are there applications that (would) have problems, with these settings, when referring to the PROV vocabulary? Or would have problems with the RDF core vocabulary if experienced the same returned values?
>
> the issue seems to be with correctly implementing content negotiation.
>
> The content negotiation on the PROV vocabulary seems to ignore complex Accept headers, e.g., "Accept: application/ld+json,application/n-quads,application/n-triples,application/rdf+xml,application/trig,text/turtle;q=0.95,text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8".
It does not seem to be the case. On the other hand it seems to be the case
that the server assigns to text/html twice the quality of text/turtle.
$ http -h https://www.w3.org/ns/prov 'accept:text/turtle,text/html;q=0.5'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-location: prov.ttl
content-type: text/turtle
$ http -h https://www.w3.org/ns/prov 'accept:text/turtle,text/html;q=0.501'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-location: prov.html
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
$ http -h https://www.w3.org/ns/prov accept:text/plain
HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable
alternates: {"prov.html" 1 {type text/html} {length 114463}}, {"prov.rdf" 0.4 {type application/rdf+xml} {length 170917}}, {"prov.ttl" 0.5 {type text/turtle} {length 112777}}, {"prov.xsd" 0.4 {type application/xml} {length 450}}
--
Micha³ Politowski
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2019 22:10:06 UTC