- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 00:16:44 -0400
- To: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas@bandholtz.info>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org, public-esw@w3.org
Thomas Bandholtz writes:
> Dan:
> > That doesn't necessarily follow. HTTP supports content negotiation
> > (see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/
> > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2616.txt) which allows multiple
> > representations of the same thing to be made accessible via a
> > common URI.
>
> I found http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec12.html:
> "Server-driven negotiation has disadvantages:
> 1. It is impossible for the server to accurately determine what
> might be "best" for any given user, since that would require
> complete knowledge of both the capabilities of the user agent
> and the intended use for the response (e.g., does the user
> want to view it on screen or print it on paper?)."
>
> IMHO we only could think about server-driven negotiation here.
> This does not sound very encouraging ...
Server-side negotiation can be very effective in combination with the
Accept headers.
For example:
GET /foaf/0.1/ HTTP/1.1
Host: xmlns.com
Accept: text/html
returns a description of FOAF in HTML, while
GET /foaf/0.1/ HTTP/1.1
Host: xmlns.com
Accept: application/rdf+xml
returns a schema in RDF/XML.
--
David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 00:17:06 UTC