Re: Site metadata; my preference

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Mark Baker wrote:

> > How would that work?   "Accept: application/meta-html" or something?
>
> Exactly.  "meta-html" is still HTML, so should be using the text/html
> media type.  Conneg is for handling variability in representations,
> not variability in resources.  The latter is what URIs are for.

I use Accept: application/rdf+xml for now, even it we can't restrict
semantic to a single mime type. (I don't want to open the issue about what
mime type is _really_ ok for a resource, also ;) )

> To Yves;
>
> Re OPTIONS, that's a good example, but it appears to me (as I've used
> it quite extensively), that it falls on the other side of the equation
> that evaluates the trade offs with respect to latency.  In the uses I
> made of it, an extra round trip was a non-starter.

Well OPTIONS is intended to be extensible, may have a body both in request
and reply (even if it is undefined right now) and is mainly about
cummunication options on either the esrver or a specific resource.
But what is communication option? In the light of a HTTP URI, which is to
me an HTTP view of a more generic object, it is metadata of this
particular HTTP view of the resource. Also when you get a representation
of the metadata of a resource you only get a facet of it. How the metadata
of the HTTP view and the HTTP view of the metadata of this object collide?
If they are _clearly_ distinct, then OPTIONS has its use as being part of
a subset specific only to HTTP and accessible only via HTTP means.

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."