- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:14:13 -0400
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Gregory Williams<greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote: >> The problem with the proposed use of conneg is that, as spec'd, conneg >> is not a way to get a representation of a different resource (query >> form versus svc desc), it's a way to get a diff representation of the >> *same* resource... so an HTML form or an RDF form... Or an HTML >> version of the svc desc or an RDF version. But using conneg to return >> an HTML form or a svc desc is an abuse of conneg. > > Well, ideally I'd like to see a description of the service when I load the > service URI (bonus points for encoding this in RDFa), but is it an abuse of > conneg to *also* provide a query FORM on the HTML version? The purist answer is: No, not if you include an RDF Form in the RDF version of the svc desc... :> But I'm not a purist, so I don't think this is a problem. And "abuse of conneg" isn't the worst of sins, either, though I do think in this case it's a bad idea. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 15:15:13 UTC