- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:20:45 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On 29 Sep 2007, at 00:29, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 23:22 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > [...] >> My conclusion from this: Hash URIs are preferred only if you are sure >> that you never will need content negotiation. Otherwise, you simply >> have to swallow the bitter 303 pill, no matter if you go hash or >> slash. And since slash URIs are often shorter (no <#it> warts) and >> more flexible, they are the preferred choice if you want content >> negotiation. >> >> For the purposes of the Cool URIs for SW document, I'm inclined to >> continue to defend this position. > > I'd really rather not put 303 redirect configuration in > the critical path to deployment of garden variety > Semantic Web data. I share this concern. > The <doc#term> technique is available to > ordinary authors who can only use ftp to upload > data to the web. Note that setting up content negotiation can be even harder than setting up 303 redirects, so this class of authors might be best advised to avoid both techniques and just call it <doc.rdf#term> and be done with it. The biggest hurdle by far for this class of authors is perhaps RDF/ XML though. Richard > But it seems that you looked at all the same evidence and > came to a different conclusion. I don't see anything > I could say to convince you, and your position makes > a lot of sense. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > >
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 23:20:57 UTC