- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:12:10 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: kidehen@openlinksw.com, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, seb@serialseb.com, tthibodeau@openlinksw.com, www-tag@w3.org
I think the problem formulation is too vague. Some authority "owns" all the resouces in question, and can make them whatever he/she/it wants them to be. If the authority says: "this URI is specifically for a JSON version and only a JSON ", then conneg'ing to HTML seems an error. If the resource owner says: this is the URI to (another) generic resource that by the way defaults to a JSON representation, then the conneg to HTML is fine. I think the Web architecture allows either, as long as the resource owner behaives consistently. I agree with Dan that that specific examples in th e TAG finding pretty much imply the JSON-only, but those are offered as an example of good practice, not a requirement for compatibility with Web Architecture. If you need lots of cross-linked generic resources that differ primarily in the default mime-type returned, I think that's OK, if perhaps a bit unusual. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 07/31/2008 01:12 PM 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, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding 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 18:11:30 UTC