- From: Patrick Stickler (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere) <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:33:33 -0500
- To: "ext Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- 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>
On 2008-04-14 15:18, "ext Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > 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. You seem to be presuming that no other representation exists for that resource. Why would 303 be used in the above case, rather than 415? If a GET on the query URI in question normally returns an HTML instance, and my agent asks for text/n3 and no N3 is available via that URI, why would the server send a 303 response? Patrick
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 21:44:18 UTC