- From: <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:32:07 +0100
- To: "'Stian Soiland-Reyes'" <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>, "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Please read and respond to Ivan Herman when necessary. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> Sent: maandag 16 december 2019 17:06 To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org> Subject: Re: HTML entry point for the RDF Namespace? On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:50:06 +0100, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I have just announced, in a separate mail[1] that some minor changes have been done on the RDF Core namespace[2]. While at it, I have looked at a discussion that occurred on the mailing list a while ago on whether there should be some human friendly version of the namespace document (duly served with content negotiations). > > I have come up with a draft HTML file which is at a temporary URL for now: > > https://www.w3.org/1999/02/rdf-syntax.html > > the idea is that (simple) HTML file would be at https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.html and, via conneg, would be served if the request requires HTML. However, by setting the right conneg priorities, [2] would continue returning Turtle. > > The slight fear I have, and for which I would like to get some > feedback, is as follows. Imagine a buggy RDF implementation that uses > some very simple tools to fetch [2], and that tool would ask, via some > defaults, HTML. What will be returned is the no longer RDF but HTML, > meaning that this RDF environment would break. The question is: is > this a realistic worry, or am I too cautious? Ie, should we play very > defensive and NOT set up this human friendly version of the > vocabulary, or should we go ahead? Obviously, we are talking about > aesthetic here and not some functionally necessary feature, so we can > allow ourselves to be defensive… You would know from web access logs if the namespace is being frequently access programmatically, which sounds a bit odd for this particular namespace. I think this would be a good idea. You can set it up so it is only served if "text/html" and/or application/xhtml+xml are explicitly listed in Accept - then it's pretty certainly a browser or crawler interested in human readable view.
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 16:32:14 UTC