Re: Browsers breaking content negotiation

The issue is not with RDF or resource identification though. Even only
considering image media types, such browser behavior breaks
applications.

If for example both image/svg and image/png are supported, and maybe
SVG is preferred, the server cannot make an informed choice based on
Accept: */* only.

The bug I linked to describes a real-world example, though even before
Firefox switched to */*:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1249474

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>> and dct:format adds
>> support for some extra media types.
>
> That's not the definition of dct:format.
> It's meaning is not "is available as" but rather
> "The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource."
>
> Which sources do you find for your definition?
>
>> So a more explicit (but not practical) example would be something like:
>>
>>  <http://some.com/img/19f87c54-bb97-4aa7-8163-166e3858f45e>
>> dct:format "image/jpeg", "application/xhtml+xml",
>> "application/rdf+xml", "application/n-quads", "text/rdf+n3",
>> "application/n-triples", "application/ld+json", "application/rdf+xml",
>> "application/rdf+thrift", "text/turtle", "text/trig" .
>
> I cannot think of any resource that can be both represented
> as application/n-triples and image/jpeg,
> unless that image/jpeg is a "screenshot" of the text or something
> (but let's agree that is a pathological case).
>
> In the more general case, no JPEG image can be represented as RDF;
> rather, a document about that image can be represented as RDF.
> So we are talking about two different resources:
> – the image (can have representations: JPEG, GIF, PNG, …)
> – metadata about the image (can have representations: HTML, Turtle, …)
>
> In other words, the resource design as presented is wrong;
> two different things are being conflated into one.
>
>> Do your arguments still hold?
>
> Yes.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:34:02 UTC