- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:16:15 +1000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, dviner@apache.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:39:45 +1000, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote: > This is an interesting solution. I definitely agree that it would > restrict > the URI creator/originator's freedom. However, what if we just used > another > feature of HTTP to handle this? I'm thinking of the Accept HTTP header. > Here's a snippet from the rfc > (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2068/rfc2068) > " > The Accept request-header field can be used to specify certain media > types which are acceptable for the response. Accept headers can be > used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small > set of desired types, as in the case of a request for an in-line > image. > " > I think it should be feasible to issue this sort of request: > GET /food/blah HTTP/1.1 > Host: example.com > Accept: application/rdf+xml Patrick replied > Not to just jump in and jump out calously, but this has been > explored quite a bit for quite some time and content negotiation > is simply not the correct mechanism for this. > C.f. the FAQ section of http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html ... > Patrick I'm not so sure. I can see the problem if you see the world through URIQA glasses, but I think outside of that it is not a bad answer. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2005 08:16:41 UTC