- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:33:51 +0000
- To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
- CC: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > Mark Baker wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >>> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content >>> RDF to be returned instead. >> How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented >> somewhere, or expressed in-band? If not the latter, then I'd say >> that's not passable because, from a REST POV it's not respecting the >> hypermedia constraint. I'd suggest returning a Link header using the >> "alternate" relation type, e.g. >> >> GET /user/23 HTTP/1.1 >> Host: example.org >> Accept: application/rdf+xml >> >> --> >> >> HTTP/1.1 200 Ok >> Content-Type: application/rdf+xml >> Link: <http://example.org/user/23.n3>; rel="alternate"; type="text/n3" >> Link: <http://example.org/user/23.html>; rel="alternate"; type="text/html" >> ... >> > > already doing the aforementioned with the Link headers :) however raises > another question; is this okay in HTML > > <link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" > href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF XML" /> > <link rel="alternate" type="text/rdf+n3" > href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF N3" /> > > ? actually.. how about this.. GET /user/23 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: application/rdf+xml --> HTTP/1.1 200 Ok Content-Type: application/rdf+xml Link: <http://example.org/user/23>; rel="alternate"; type="text/rdf+n3" Link: <http://example.org/user/23>; rel="alternate"; type="application/rdf+json" and so forth.. note the URI never changes only the type..
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:34:40 UTC