W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

From: Sebastien Lambla <seb@serialseb.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:58:41 +0100
Message-ID: <BLU102-DS384EBCB4F50BC34B31FB5B57C0@phx.gbl>
To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, <raman@google.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "Ted Thibodeau Jr" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>

> Is it ever appropriate to configure content negotiation on the 
> *representation-specific URIs*? So, if someone requests the specific  URI 
> for representation_1, but the Accept header indicates a preference  for 
> representation_3, should content negotiation kick in and  representation_3 
> be served instead?

If your url is the representation-specific one, then the conneg would fail 
if the content-type of /resource.html is text/html and the Accept: only 
contains application/xhtml+xml, as the representation is not the resource 
and the url you requested is the one of the representation, not the 
resource. I would return a 406.

I'd understand the reasoning as being that if you dereference /resource.html 
and get a 200 you can assert it is a document, if you were to conneg to 
another url from the specific url you loose that assertion as defined in 
httpRange-14

Sebastien Lambla 
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 13:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC