W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2007

Re: ISSUE-57: The use of HTTP Redirection

From: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:40:29 +0100
Message-ID: <46D2FE7D.7000301@nildram.co.uk>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
CC: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>

Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> I think a less intrusive way is to give the RDF mimetype representation 
> (application/rdf+xml, text/rdf+n3,...) a unique status.  Because RDF 
> document always talk about something-else. 
>  
> So, GET (rdf) http://example.com/

Sorry, but this seems like a very poor solution to me.  It
complicates the meaning of GET (to add the possibility of
returning metadata instead of a representation of the
resource).  It seems to be quite reasonable to ask for
metadata about an RDF document; for example, you might want
provenance or validity period information.

Also, there could be horrible interactions with content
negotiation.  Some content types (e.g., application/xhtml+xml
with suitable GRDDL markup) could be considered "RDF
mimetypes" and hence be quite sensible responses to a request
for metadata yet also be used for likely representations of
the resource itself.

Ed Davies.
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 16:40:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:47 GMT