On 11/4/10 12:25 PM, Bradley Allen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ian Davis<me@iandavis.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Bradley Allen<bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Basically what you are saying is: if I have a single URI that responds >>> to an HTTP GET with (X)HTML+RDFa by default, and supports other RDF >>> serializations through content negotiation, then all of that can be >>> done without recourse to a 303 redirect and should be perfectly >>> compatible with linked data best practice. >> That is what I would like to see and what I believe is possible. It's >> not current practice, so I'm seeking a change. >> > I am in violent agreement. It is long past due that someone made this > point. As has been said been said earlier, this simplifies > implementation, eliminates unnecessary traffic and is completely > transparent to linked data clients that do content negotiation. - BPA > >>> Bradley P. Allen >>> http://bradleypallen.org > Bradley, When did you loose this option? (X)HTML+RDFa is another mechanism structured data representation. One that doesn't mandate Apache (bottom line) for deployment. Just drop the resource wherever, and you're done re. your Web of Linked Data contribution. 303 redirection has never been a mandate. Separating Names from Addresses has, and should be a mandate -- assuming this is where this debate is headed. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 19:12:57 UTC