- From: Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:25:16 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: William Waites <ww@styx.org>, Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 10/01/2011 14:16, Nathan wrote: > Phil Archer wrote: >> On the Web in general, URIs don't, or certainly shouldn't, imply any >> particular content type. > > They don't imply anything, they name things, and the thing that's named > can by all means be a representation with a specific mediatype, infact > this is by far the most common usage of URIs, and always has been. True, of course. But the fact that the identified resource is only available in a single representation is not denoted by the identifier. One might have reasonable expectations about http://example.com/index.html but no more. The only authoritative declaration of the content type of a resource is given in the HTTP response headers received when dereferencing the identifier. -- Phil Archer Talis Systems Ltd, Web: http://www.talis.com Tel: +44 1473 434770 Twitter: philarcher1 LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/philarcher Personal: http://philarcher.org
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 14:26:46 UTC