- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:18:05 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Patrick Stickler wrote: > > If conneg is used to ask for descriptions of resources, what will we > use to ask for different encodings of those descriptions? > > Will RDF/XML only ever be the single allowed encoding for > descriptions. I expect not, even if it will and should have primary > status. > In my example, a request for application/rdf+xml could be 303- redirected. The target of the redirect can still negotiate further, i.e. dereferencing it may yield RDF or N3 or some other format. If the original request URI wants, it could also perform the 303-redirect if the client only Accepts text/rdf+n3, or any similar description format. -Eric
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 20:20:25 UTC