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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

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>
Message-ID: <C42937DD.428A%patrick.stickler@nokia.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?
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 21:44:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:56 UTC