- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:47:56 +0100
- To: raman@google.com, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Hi Raman and other TAG members, This is a question about the TAG Finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html “On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And Publishing” The finding is quite concise, and I have repeatedly encountered disagreement about its interpretation when discussing best practices in the Linking Open Data community. Hence I ask for clarification on one point. About resources that have multiple variants, the finding suggests: “1. Create representation-specific URIs (specific resources) for each available alternative (representation_i), e.g.,http://example.com/ubiquity/resource/representation_i .” And then to configure a “generic resource” that links to and/or content-negotiates to each of those representation-specific URIs. My question is: Is it ever appropriate to configure content negotiation on the *representation-specific URIs*? So, if someone requests the specific URI for representation_1, but the Accept header indicates a preference for representation_3, should content negotiation kick in and representation_3 be served instead? If this is not appropriate, why? Cheers, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:48:38 UTC