Re: Uniform access to descriptions

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