- From: Sebastien Lambla <seb@serialseb.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:58:41 +0100
- To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, <raman@google.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "Ted Thibodeau Jr" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
> 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 your url is the representation-specific one, then the conneg would fail if the content-type of /resource.html is text/html and the Accept: only contains application/xhtml+xml, as the representation is not the resource and the url you requested is the one of the representation, not the resource. I would return a 406. I'd understand the reasoning as being that if you dereference /resource.html and get a 200 you can assert it is a document, if you were to conneg to another url from the specific url you loose that assertion as defined in httpRange-14 Sebastien Lambla
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 13:59:24 UTC