- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:33:08 +0200
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:12, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: > hello henry. > > On 2013-06-10 9:04 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> I argue strongly against using mediatypes as it is mistaking syntax with >> semantics. Simply put: the content in bytes sent from the server to the >> client >> is known as a representation of the resource ( it has a syntax defined by >> its mime type ) > > repeating this over and over does not make it any more correct. if that > were the case, HTML would not exist as a media type (driving the web > through its HTML-specific links), and instead we would have text/sgml, > because that would be all that was needed in order to parse HTML into some > generic metamodel. You seem to think that my argument is: (h1) "one should use the more generic mime type when there is no loss of information". Then your counterargument is (w1) SGML is a more generic mime type to HTML and there is no loss of information (h1) + (w1) implies the SGML mime type should be used instead of the HTML mime type Now this depends on (w1) but is it true that (qw1) HTML is really a syntactic subset of SGML (qw2) there is no loss of information. A good SGML parser would have been able to work out exactly what the meaning of the HTML was? But in any case that is _not_ my argument. My argument is that the "Content-Type" header gives you the type of the representation. A representation is something you cannot do a GET, PUT, POST etc... on. Whereas an HTTP Resource is something you can do that on. A stream of bytes is one thing, a Resource is another thing. A resource is different from a representation. These are all basic REST principles. So to try to restrict the type of the resource, by placing information in the Content-Type which is about the representation, is simply a mistake. It's the wrong place to put that information. > >> Perhaps we could do the HTTP/RDF community a favor to register the >> relation >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type to the shorthand "type" >> so that >> the above could become >> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type" > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903#section-6 A good, that does indeed look close enough to the rdf:type relation :-) > > cheers, > > dret. > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 16:33:40 UTC