- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:38:23 +0000
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi, On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > ... > But what I still don't understand is the answer of Vapour when requesting > RDF/XML : > > 1st request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying the desired > content type (HTTP response code should be 303 (redirect)): Passed > 2nd request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying the desired > content type (Content type should be 'application/rdf+xml'): Failed > 2nd request while dereferencing resource URI without specifying the desired > content type (HTTP response code should be 200): Passed >From a purely HTTP and Content Negotiation point of view, if a client doesn't specify an Accept header then its perfectly legitimate for a server to return a default format of its choosing. I think it could also decide to serve a 300 status code and prompt the client to choose an option thats available. >From an interoperability point of view, having a default format that clients can rely on is reasonable. Until now, RDF/XML has been the standardised format that we can all rely on, although shortly we may all collectively decide to prefer Turtle. So ensuring that RDF/XML is available seems like a reasonable thing for a validator to try and test for. But there's several ways that test could have been carried out. E.g. Vapour could have checked that there was a RDF/XML version and provided you with some reasons why that would be useful. Perhaps as a warning, rather than a fail. The explicit check for RDF/XML being available AND being the default preference of the server is raising the bar slightly, but its still trying to aim for interop. Personally I think I'd implement this kind of check as "ensure there is at least one valid RDF serialisation available, either RDF/XML or Turtle". I wouldn't force a default on a server, particularly as we know that many clients can consume multiple formats. This is where automated validation tools have to tread carefully: while they play an excellent role in encouraging consistently, the tests they perform and the feedback they give need to have some nuance. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Freelance Technologist Open Data, Linked Data Geek t: @ldodds w: ldodds.com e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 11:38:51 UTC