- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:50:07 -0300
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > Hi all, > > One good practice for identifying non-document resources is to use "hash > URIs" like http://example/john#me, and to serve a description at the URI > obtained by taking the part before the hash, e.g. http://example/john. > > Now let's say I want to serve both RDF and HTML descriptions of John. > That is, both formats should be available from http://example.org/john, > depending on the request's Accept: header. How to do this? > > a) Just return the requested type of content right at > http://example.org/john > > b) Redirect to two different URLs, depending on the requested type, e.g. > http://example.org/john.html and http://example.org/john.rdf > > I notice that the SWBP Vocabulary Recipes [1] suggest b). I have a hunch > that a) is problematic because it's a bit ambiguous, > http://example.org/john#me could refer either to John, or to an anchor > within an HTML page, if there's no 303 redirect in between. So, is only > b) allowed, or is a) fine too? > > Comments? This is the oldest and least rewarding discussion in the SW community! You're very right of course, it's problematic to conneg in context of such URIs. This is why I always preferred slash URIs! Ah well... I guess we're in a "Doctor doctor, it hurts when I poke my finger in my eye" situation here? Sometimes conneg is best avoided... cheers, Dan > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#recipe3 >
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 15:50:23 UTC