- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:51:21 +0100
- To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, seb@serialseb.com, www-tag@w3.org, kidehen@openlinksw.com
Ted, On 6 Aug 2008, at 18:19, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: >> Returning to your final question, where the user-agent does >> content-negotiation, indicates a preference for one type, but >> asks by URI for the other, I would say respect the URI. I dont >> claim this to be *correct* in any sense, other than that I would >> break the tie this way. Reasoning: The client, by asking for a >> URI that directly resolves to a given representation has >> essentially bypassed content-negotiation. > > These two paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other. (And > I'm baffled as to why you would choose to respect the URI when > you don't claim this behavior is *correct*. Why not choose the > correct behavior, when such can be determined, and has been, > i.e., HTTP 406?) > > How is a Client Agent to know that the URI it has requested > corresponds directly to a resource which content doesn't match > its Accept: header? I think you misunderstood Raman's message. Raman was answering to a question of me: What should a server do if the client accepts formats A and B; accesses the resource specific to A; but expresses a preference of B over A. Should the server answer A or B? 406 is clearly not a sensible choice. The waiter/restaurant/glass/ice analogy is misleading. Content negotiation isn't like a restaurant. Best, Richard > > > It can only learn this if the Server delivers a 406 when such > a mis-matched request is made. > > A 406 is the *only* response I can imagine which conforms both to > the HTTP/1.1 specification *and* to Web architecture (which I do > not see as in conflict, but that may be due to my perspective). > > To slightly modify an example Kingsley used on the LOD list, if > I ask for water (i.e., "Accept: state/liquid") and you deliver > ice ("state/solid") or steam ("state/vapor") -- has my request > been satisfied? > > I think not -- and this is not too terribly far removed from the > scenario where I request URI-a (Accept: text/plain) and you give > me URI-a (application/binary). > > Tell me you don't have water, but you do have ice and steam -- > and let *me* decide what to do next. > > *This* is *negotiation*. > > Be seeing you, > > Ted > > > > -- > A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/ > attribution.html > | Q: Are you sure? > | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > > Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 > x32 > Evangelism & Support // > mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com > OpenLink Software, Inc. // http:// > www.openlinksw.com/ > http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/ > OpenLink Blogs http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/ > virtuoso/ > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ > Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 18:55:37 UTC