- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:31:29 -0500
- To: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 20:09 +0200, Mikael Nilsson wrote: > fre 2007-09-28 klockan 14:28 -0500 skrev Dan Connolly: > > > > (b) publishing only RDF without the HTML is pretty useful. > > If you decide later that you want HTML, you can add it. > > Note that it suffices to do a 303 redirect for .html; > > you don't need to redirect in both cases. You can > > just return the RDF in a 200 response to GET /doc . > > I see here the pattern > > <doc#term> - non-info resource > > <doc> -> 200 OK, RDF/XML > <doc> -> 303 See Other, <doc.html>, HTML > > and > > <doc/term> - non-info resource > > <doc/term> -> 303 See Other, <doc/term.html>, HTML > <doc/term> -> 303 See Other, <doc/term.rdf>, RDF/XML > > It worries me slightly that we now have a mechanism for getting RDF > information about non-info resources, but we have no way of getting > similar information about information resources, such as > > <doc> - information resource > > <doc> -> 200 OK, HTML > <doc> -> 303 See Other, RDF/XML <<==== How to trigger this? > > For symmetry, WebArch would be well served if there would be a > well-defined way to trigger such "See Other" responses. But the situation is not symmetric. The HTML spec for fragment identifiers can (currently) only express things about elements/anchors, while the RDF spec for fragments is unconstrained. In any case, configuration of HTTP servers such as Apache is completely symmetric, as far as I know. I don't think I understand your point/question. Perhaps you could elaborate in more concrete terms? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 13:31:24 UTC