- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:18:52 +0000
- To: "Renato Golin" <renato@ebi.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Nov 22, 2007 10:10 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > I agree with you that "<link rel="stylesheet" type="application/rdf+xml" > href="style.rdf" />" and similar cases is the best solution for embedded > RDF, as it would have a content-type. No need for heuristics in this case. Actually these principles even apply to RDF Stylesheet languages, because they're a metalanguage too. It'd be a good principle for authors of RDF Stylesheet languages to specify "magic triples", sorta like magic bytes for files, that let people discover a file type more easily. I was thinking about using document subtypes, because then you'd just query for { <> rdf:type ?x } and see if the types that you can handle are in the results for ?x, but that makes it hard when you want to merge mergeable stylesheets. > Of course, not always you'll have the right content-type or some at > all, so following the most probable to least Well, RFC 2616 defines what to do in such a case, and the specifications for HTML 4.01 and XML have something to say about how to handle character encodings and so on too. You're right that you should use existing stuff where it's available, but quite often it's not particularly specification conformant so you end up rolling your own anyway. Python, which I'm using, is supposed to be a "batteries included" language and yet its standard library doesn't have anything for HTTP response encoding detection. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 09:19:09 UTC