- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:24:59 +0100
- To: Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid@w3.org
> If every spec would end up making such recommendations for possible different > serializations, then publishers trying to support different specs may end up > being forced to publish all possible serializations, which is a pretty high > burden to push to publishers. Good point. It applies in reverse to clients, I guess, which is where I am coming from, but the burden of having to support all possible serializations would definitely impact publishers in a much more significant way. > what will happen when you open such a WebID document in a web > browser? You get Turtle? That would be absolute nonsense, as WebIDs > can have HTML representations. > My personal profile is hosted on a static file server as HTML with RDFa. > Therefore, I do not have the possibility to provide content negotiation on > this server, Hosting WebID documents as static resources necessarily implies the possibility that a browser might find itself confronted with a text/turtle document, that an automated client might find itself confronted with a HTML+RDFa document and so on, given the absence of conneg. > Why do you interpret "MUST provide Turtle" in a way that precludes conneg? That is my understanding of the use of MUST vs. MAY in the following paragraph: > A WebID Profile Document is a Web resource that MUST be available as > text/turtle [turtle], but MAY be available in other RDF serialization > formats (e.g. [RDFA-CORE]) if requested through content negotiation. IMHO, the above contemplates the possibility for a publisher to only respond with text/turtle or possibly with a "406 Not Applicable" if anything other than text/turtle is requested. I'm still not comfortable with the idea that clients will, in practice, have to support all serialization formats but I appreciate how not doing so leads to more difficult problems. I think I'm coming around to NetID's approach - no default serialization format, no requirement for conneg. Compared to WebID as it is today, I think that would mean dropping the MUSTs on text/turtle. > I suspect that you think like I did before August 14, 2021 at 20:34ยน. It does seem the case, yes.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 12:25:15 UTC