W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:18:05 -0600
To: "Patrick Stickler (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Message-Id: <20080414141805.7bed39b7.eric@bisonsystems.net>

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> If conneg is used to ask for descriptions of resources, what will we
> use to ask for different encodings of those descriptions?
> 
> Will RDF/XML only ever be the single allowed encoding for
> descriptions. I expect not, even if it will and should have primary
> status.
> 

In my example, a request for application/rdf+xml could be 303-
redirected.  The target of the redirect can still negotiate further,
i.e. dereferencing it may yield RDF or N3 or some other format.  If the
original request URI wants, it could also perform the 303-redirect if
the client only Accepts text/rdf+n3, or any similar description format.

-Eric
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 20:20:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:56 GMT