- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:37:37 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >>>>> Not really. The site owner (who may be != Joe) could configure the >>>>> server to return a Link header, without having to touch the >>>>> resource itself. >>>> Julian, think more. If there is no new information, what would the >>>> site owner configures it for? If there is new information, >>>> configure Conneg (Accept) takes the same effort to configure LINK. >>> >>> Well, I gave an example (associating a CSS stylesheet with legacy >>> HTML). >> Bind the CSS stylesheet and HTML to the same URI. Given the >> stylesheet a MIME type? > > Why would I ever want that? Is the content and the stylesheet the same > resource? No. Julian, This depends on what do you mean resource. But in both your case and mime, they are different things. In my model, the legacy data is different from the stylesheet too. They collectively describe a resource denoted by the URI they are bound too. It is just you can them different resources and I can them different representations. This is the issue I am trying to debate. Xiaoshu > >> ... > > BR, Julian > >
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 23:38:27 UTC