Re: Returning HTTP codes with HTML descriptions.

On 11/2/12 8:54 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello.
>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 16:03, "Alexandre Bertails" <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>> There are some interesting ideas in this spec, but in our case, the
>> client already understands RDF, so I don't see why we would return
>> anything but RDF for "problem details".
> i knew you'd say that ;-) then why not derive RDF from the JSON model? that's what i'm doing, the idea is that the abstract model should be consistent across different concrete models.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
+ 0.5

RDF and JSON aren't important. What's important is structured content 
that's available in a variety of formats via explicit or implicit 
content negotiation.

<link/> and "Link:" provide "deceptively simple" solutions to these 
never ending problems with content formats. The letters "R-D-F", 
"J-S-O-N" etc.. always take us to distracting places where format 
arguments distort what's already possible, based on existing standards.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen