- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:02:20 +0100
- To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Thomas Steiner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> I was wondering if we might use:
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/
> Sounds like a good thing to do, if the list can be extended to contain
>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/microformats
> http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/microdata
> along the already present
> http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/RDFa
agreed, that would be cool - and Ivan thanks for adding.
> With regards to MIME types and file extensions for common RDF
> serializations, those, as far as I can tell from the various specs or
> spec-like documents, are meant to be as follows (where sometimes
> common practice differs):
>
> RDF/XML: application/rdf+xml (*.rdf)
> Turtle: text/turtle (*.ttl)
> N3: text/n3 (*.n3)
> NTriples: text/plain (*.nt)
Just a quick FYI, RDF/XML is the only one that's registered, but is also
often served as application/xml
Turtle is often served as:
text/turtle
application/turtle
application/x-turtle
N3 is often served as:
text/n3
text/rdf+n3
text/turtle+n3
application/n3
and all 3 + nt are often served as:
text/text
text/plain
It's quite a pita to be honest! (not mentioning pdf or similar ;))
> This list, as Nathan points out, leaves out embedded RDF/semantics
> like RDFa, micro{data|formats}.
>
> I think using an extended list based on http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/
> is a good solution. Plus a name change to the API ;-)
>
> Best,
> Tom
>
Received on Sunday, 24 October 2010 13:03:00 UTC