- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:12:38 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, seb@serialseb.com, www-tag@w3.org, kidehen@openlinksw.com, tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 17:43 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > Let's say I have > > /resource (generic information resource with HTML and JSON > variants) > /resource.html (a HTML specific URI) > /resource.json (a JSON specific URI) > > Now let's say I request /resource.json with an Accept header of > "Accept: text/html". What should happen? > > One opinion is that the JSON should be served anyway, because the URI > identifies a specific variant. > > Another opinion is that the HTML should be served, or redirected to, > because that's what the client asked for and the server has it > available. > > (A third opinion is that 406 should be answered, as suggested by > Sebastien.) Either a 406 or a 200 with JSON is consistent with the claim that /resource.json is JSON-specific. Serving a 200 with text/html is not. A redirect might be reasonable... it feels like a bit of a stretch. > What I'm asking for is simply a clarification of the advice in the > spec. Did you intend that there be content negotiation on the > representation_i URIs? I didn't; re-reading the text, I don't see any other way to read it. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 17:12:04 UTC