- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:47:58 -0400
- To: webreq@w3.org, w3c-semweb-ad@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Yesterday Dom made the change requested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/webreq/2002May/0078.html To: webreq@w3.org Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:22:35 +0100 Message-ID: <29215.1021641755@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> Subject: Media Type for RDF/XML ... As the editor of the RDF/XML syntax document for the WG I'd like to get the w3.org web servers changed over to use this for '.rdf' and maybe '.rdfs' files. Thanks, Dom. Now we see the bad effects of [lack of] backward compatibility with deployed browsers. Before this change yesterday, resources such as http://www.w3.org/2002/06/conf would be retrieved and rendered in a useable fashion (thanks to the CSS) by IE5 and Mozilla 1.0. After this change, IE5 refuses to download the resource at all. It starts a "file download" operation but then reports the bizarre error "Internet Explorer was not able to open this Internet site. The requested site is either unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later." If I try to open http://www.w3.org/2002/06/conf.rdf (that is, with the explicit file extension) in IE5 it offers the file download dialog successfully. Mozilla offers to download http://www.w3.org/2002/06/conf. Note that http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.rdf still (as of the time I am writing this message) works in a useful fashion because the configuration of the server to which that resource is proxied has not yet been changed. So, while I supported the RDFCore WG's decision in theory I am forced to disagree in practice. Dom, please revert this media type change to our servers.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 08:49:04 UTC