- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 21:34:49 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Hi all, > I think at this point we need to put the prose behind us and make HTTP > request/response examples for each use case, in order to remove any > ambiguity. Examples are a good idea. However, we should first agree on whether "canonical" implies MUST or SHOULD. I would be ok with the spec suggesting support for a canonical/SHOULD format and I would be ok with the spec suggesting no canonical format at all. I would not be ok with the spec mandating support for a canonical/MUST format. We should also specify, per each case, whether the server supports conneg and thus whether it can understand when a client is expressing a preference. We can try to declinate examples per each combination of MUST/SHOULD, conneg/no-conneg, preference/no-preference but that would be a lot of examples. Is there a chance that we can converge a little bit more before drafting examples? > Content Negotiation is an implementation detail that has no business being in > the WebID spec. The current spec/draft mentions conneg, which is why I am in favour of keeping it optional while still mentioning it. I would also be ok with not mentioning it at all, I think. > We should start by changing the topic of this thread regarding > content-negotiation from "WebID and Content Negotiation" to "WebID Profile > Documents and Content Negotiation". > That simple change will be very useful to the general conversation. If not, > we will continue to burn time on a conflated issue rife with confusion, IMHO. I don't *think* I am making this particular mistake but happy to be corrected. Best regards, Jacopo. > On 27 Jan 2022, at 21:15, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > On 1/27/22 1:51 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:19 PM Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>>> Could we come to a consensus that content negotiation is optional for >>>> current and future WebID work? >>> I agree that it should remain optional, as per the current WebID spec/draft: >>> >>> a) conneg tends to be incompatible with hosting of static resources >>> b) conneg comes with its own complexity, which should not be forced upon >>> adopters of the spec >>> >>> In practice, this entails that a client asking for a specific serialization >>> format might: >>> >>> - receive a response in the requested format >>> - receive a "406 Not Acceptable" response if the requested format is not >>> supported by the publisher but basic conneg is >>> - receive the response in a different format if the publisher does not support >>> conneg >>> >>> I'm happy with all three implications. >> I think at this point we need to put the prose behind us and make HTTP >> request/response examples for each use case, in order to remove any >> ambiguity. Request examples: >> >> 1. No format preference (canonical format is Turtle) >> >> GET /webid >> >> 2. Canonical format (Turtle) is preferred >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: text/turtle, application/rdf+xml;q=0.8 >> >> 3. Non-canonical RDF format is preferred and supported by the server >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: application/rdf+xml, text/turtle;q=0.8 >> >> 4. Non-canonical RDF format is preferred and *not* supported by the server >> a. without fallback >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: application/rdf+xml >> >> b. with Turtle as fallback >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: application/rdf+xml, text/turtle;q=0.8 >> >> 5. HTML is preferred and supported by the server >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: text/html, text/turtle;q=0.8 >> >> 6. HTML is preferred and *not* supported by the server >> a. without fallback >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: text/html >> >> b. with Turtle as fallback >> >> GET /webid >> Accept: text/html, text/turtle;q=0.8 >> >>> Best regards, >>> Jacopo. >>> >>> > Hi Martynas, > > Here's a suggestion. > > We should start by changing the topic of this thread regarding content-negotiation from "WebID and Content Negotiation" to "WebID Profile Documents and Content Negotiation". > > That simple change will be very useful to the general conversation. If not, we will continue to burn time on a conflated issue rife with confusion, IMHO. > > -- > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com > Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com > Weblogs (Blogs): > Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog > Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog > Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers > > Personal Weblogs (Blogs): > Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen > Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ > http://kidehen.blogspot.com > > Profile Pages: > Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ > Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen > Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen > Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > Web Identities (WebID): > Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i > : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this >
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2022 20:35:08 UTC