W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

RE: [VM] bug in recipes ... fixes

From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:10:20 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D98522D@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Just to say that I've tested the proposed configuration given below and it works as desired. I.e. all URIs are 'clickable' in both Mozilla and IE6, and if you specifically request application/rdf+xml that's what you get.

N.B. there is actually a minor error in the proposed configuration given below, the rewrite condition directive should be as follows:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/rdf\+xml

(The '+' character has to be escaped, because this is a regular expression.)

Al.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 17 January 2006 16:24
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [VM] bug in recipes ... fixes
> 
> 
> 
> I propose we make our recipes IE friendly, and serve HTML 
> content as the default response where content negotiation is 
> configured. 
> 
> So then, for example, recipe 3 configuration directives would become:
> 
> # Turn off MultiViews
> Options -MultiViews
> 
> # Directive to ensure *.rdf files served as appropriate content type, 
> # if not present in main apache config
> AddType application/rdf+xml .rdf
> 
> # Rewrite engine setup
> RewriteEngine On
> RewriteBase /VM/http-examples
> 
> # Rewrite rule to serve RDF/XML content from the ontology URI 
> if requested
> RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} application/rdf+xml
> RewriteRule ^example3$ example3-content/2005-10-31.rdf [R=303]
> 
> # Rewrite rule to make sure we serve HTML content from the 
> ontology URI by default 
> RewriteRule ^example3$ example3-content/2005-10-31.html [R=303]
> 
> (See [1] for current recipe 3 configuration.) 
> 
> I haven't actually tested this in both Mozilla and IE6, but 
> it *should* work (!!)
> 
> Al.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-
> 11-18/#recipe3
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: 17 January 2006 16:04
> > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [VM] bug in recipes ... fixes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > OK, I found that IE6 sends the following Accept header with 
> > an HTTP GET request:
> > 
> > Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, 
> > application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel, 
> > application/msword, application/x-shockwave-flash, */* 
> > 
> > Note that 'text/html', 'text/xml', 'application/xml', and 
> > 'application/xhtml+xml' are all absent.
> > 
> > I designed the conditional redirects in recipes 3, 4 & 5 (and 
> > also 8, 9 & 10) to work with the accept headers that Mozilla 
> > sends, assuming that IE would send similar headers, but I 
> > should have tested this.
> > 
> > Btw Mozilla sends the following Accept header:
> > 
> > Accept: 
> > text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9
> ,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
> > 
> > What this means ... 
> > 
> > If we want the URIs of classes and properties to be 
> > 'clickable' (i.e. to take you to some human-friendly 
> > documentation when visited in a web browser) in both Mozilla 
> > and IE, then we have to turn recipes 3, 4 & 5 around, making 
> > HTML content the default response (i.e. what the client gets 
> > if it doesn't specify an 'Accept' header at all, or the 
> > 'Accept' header sent by the client is not recognised by the 
> > server), and requiring that clients send 'Accept: 
> > application/rdf+xml' if they want RDF/XML.
> > 
> > Changing the default response to HTML has obvious 
> > implications for RDF toolkits, as they would be forced to 
> > include an 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' header in all HTTP 
> > GET requests, which I believe they currently do not do (?)
> > 
> > And I thought I had been so clever!
> > 
> > So basically, if we want URIs to be clickable in IE, either we 
> > 
> >  (a) leave the recipes as they are and ask IE to send more 
> > headers, or 
> >  (b) change the recipes around and ask RDF toolkits to send 
> > more headers.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> > > (Alistair)
> > > Sent: 17 January 2006 15:31
> > > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: [VM] bug in recipes
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > BUG: I just noticed that the conditional redirects don't work 
> > > with IE6 as the client ... you always end up at the RDF 
> > > content. Anyone have an idea why? 
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Alistair Miles
> > > Research Associate
> > > CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > > Building R1 Room 1.60
> > > Fermi Avenue
> > > Chilton
> > > Didcot
> > > Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> > > United Kingdom
> > > Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 20:11:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC