- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:39:22 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
The N3 Specification is http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3 and it says text/rdf+n3 That is also what cwm implements. That is also what the www.w3.org site implements: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:37:01 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) PHP/4.3.10 WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="W3CACL" P3P: policyref="http://www.w3.org/2001/05/P3P/p3p.xml" Cache-Control: max-age=21600 Expires: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:37:01 GMT Last-Modified: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:33:55 GMT ETag: "3e9a1003" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 9994 Content-Type: text/rdf+n3; qs=0.89 It is true that the UTF-8 characetr encoding should be specified explicitly when an N3 document is not ASCII, as it is implicit for N3 but not for text/* Tim On Jan 16, 2005, at 15:32, Dan Brickley wrote: > Hi. Nice to see > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050114 > out and about :) > > Just one brief and boring comment now while I remember: > > "text/n3" should probably be "application/rdf+n3" > or "application/n3". Googling for these, it seems both > are in various codebases. Perhaps having a conneg-happy > protocol spec out there will motivate some concensus > (and a media type registration) in the N3 scene? CC:'ing timbl... > (text/n3 is worse due to UTF-8 vs ASCII issues). Ah, > Tim says "text/rdf+n3" is also in use. Hmm. I'm going to hit > "send" on this mail anyways, to flag the issue! > > cheers, > > Dan > > ps. typos in 2.2: > "Accept-Chareset" -> "Accept-Charset" > > "prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/%gt; ." > ... s/%gt/>/ I think > > also suggest "Host: my.example" > -> "Host: my.example.org" > although http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt > allows .example as a fictional TLD >
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 03:39:41 UTC