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

RE: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:23:39 +0000
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
CC: "seb@serialseb.com" <seb@serialseb.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "tthibodeau@openlinksw.com" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009FCFC7B1CB5@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> From: Richard Cyganiak
> [ . . . ]
> 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.

I think serving the JSON is the best option.  Serving HTML from /resource.json would defeat the purpose of having a JSON-specific URI.   It is quite likely that the user pasted the JSON URI into a browser to test it, and *wants* to see the JSON that is returned.  Everyone knows how to paste a URI into a browser; few know how to configure their browsers to specify their desired MIME types.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 17:25:29 UTC

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