W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Browsers breaking content negotiation

From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:15:57 +0000
To: Magnus Knuth <magnus.knuth@hpi.uni-potsdam.de>
CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4354FF4D-4336-449E-9CEF-2285E83332D2@ugent.be>
Hi Magnus,

> you could represent the metadata and the content description of the media file in a machine understandable way in form of RDF.

Of course; all I am saying is that the following are two different resources:
– a media resource
– its content description
Hence, they need different URIs.

> Nevertheless, it should be clear that a server must deliver the standard document when content negotiation is set to */*.

More precisely, it should deliver:
– a representation of the media resource on the media resources's URI
– a representation of the description on the description's URI

> Only in cases where the client asks explicitly for an RDF format, it should redirect the client to the respective RDF description of the file, which in case of a 303 see other redirect has its own URI.

303 is indeed fine:
>> The 303 (See Other) status code indicates that the server is

>>    redirecting the user agent to a different resource

So, different resource indeed.

> Hence, I don’t see a problem in browsers accepting any format.

Me neither.

> Clients that are interested in RDF representations should set the accept header respectively.

Yes, but they will generally _not_ get an RDF representation of the media resource;
they might get a 303 redirect to the content description's resource.

The problem in the original thread was that no distinction between the two resources was made.


Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 14:16:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:10:59 UTC