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

Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

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
Message-Id: <1217524358.6785.399.camel@pav.lan>

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

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