- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:39:14 +0200
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: richard@cyganiak.de, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, www-tag@w3.org
------- Original message ------- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Cc: richard@cyganiak.de, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, www-tag@w3.org Sent: 1/10, 15:31 > > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 20:09 +0200, Mikael Nilsson wrote: > > <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. > The asymmetry is between IR and non-IR - in the non-IR case, getting metadata from the URI of the thing is straightforward, just look at the 303 returned. In the IR case, that 303 shadowed by a 200 response, meaning I only get the resource but no metadata. It seems strange to me that we end up with more functionality (metadata retrieval) in the non-IR case. Getting the 'see other' response is interesting for IRs too... In an ideal world, I would like too be able to do: HEAD [URI] -> 200 OK -> See Other: <metadata URI> Where the metadata URI would be open to content neg. /Mikael
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 14:39:21 UTC