- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:27:51 -0500
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
At 11:56 AM 11/1/2006 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > As a data point, I asked cwm what it thinks, and it does > > not see any triples there because it does not specify > > application/xml among the MIME types that it's willing > > to accept when it GETs the representation, and www.w3.org > > chooses to give a 406 error (note that per the HTTP > > spec, it MAY give a 200 OK response with application/xml > > in this case). [elided] >i.e. they answer "yes" to today's poll. Glad to hear that they agree. First, who is cwm? Secondly, I followed my nose and following is what I came up with. Please tell me if I lost track of my nose along the way. Examining the sample XML document, I discover a namespace which I inspect. It asserts an RDF namespace -- http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# So I follow that eventually to http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20020325/ which is entitled: RDF/XML Syntax Specification. So far, so good. So far, I have an XML document and I have discovered that the RDF namespace has been asserted in that document's namespace document. What does the RDF/XML Syntax Spec say that can help me decide whether to grok triples. Well it says: The Internet Media Type / MIME type for RDF is "application/rdf+xml" I read that as asserting authority over the RDF namespace and saying that the mime type is application/rdf+xml. That is, I don't see it saying that if the document's declared mime type is other than application/rdf+xml then there is an error. Rather that the namespace is claiming that whatever else you may believe, RDF/XML has a mime-type of application/rdf+xml. Murray
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:33:18 UTC