Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

I'm a bit confused at this point by the question.

Could you flesh out your example?

HTML  is a particularly good example, depending on how much you
know about your HTML  resource.

Though there is much debate on this, in my experience,
wel--formed  XHTML survives well when served either as text/html
or application/xml+xhtml.

So if you have a resource under your control whose  content you
know is well-formed XHTML that you would rather serve as
application/xml+xhtml, but you also know that many legacy agents
only accept text/html 
In that case, you might definitely want to  check the accept
header and serve the appropriate response.

Sebastien Lambla writes:
 > > 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 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 16:22:30 UTC