W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2009

Hausenblas' request (was agenda for TAG meeting 8-10 Dec)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:17:04 -0800
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118DC9EC383@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
> I would also like to have on the agenda to dispose of Michael
> Hausenblas's request for clarification on the of use content
> negotiation [2], in one of the following ways:
>  - reject
>  - refer Michael to HTTP WG
>  - accept as new issue
>  - accept under ISSUE-57

Hausenblas' question:

> Please note that I don't ask if this works. It does. Obviously. The
> question, to put it in other words, is: is the PNG *representation* derived
> via conneg from the generic resource <http://sw-app.org/sandbox/house>
> equivalent to the RDF in Turtle?

> If not, why not? If it is, can you please point me to a finding, note, a
> specification, etc. that 'normatively' defines what 'equivalency' really is?

IMHO, the architecture of content negotiation is (in HTTP or elsewhere) is
based on the notion that is that it is the responsibility of the 
information supplier (HTTP server in this case) to determine what
is equivalent for the purpose of this communication.

That is, there is no external authority to disallow sending a PNG and
a text/turtle version as "equivalent". Whether the server is behaving
reasonably, though, and not sending the client gibberish, is the
server's responsibility. 

Issue 57 would be inappropriate.  I suppose we should consider, though,
whether the response of ACTION-231 for ISSUE-53 might be insufficient?

I.e., 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0763.html


should add a sentence, e.g.,

< Note that the supplier of representations (or choices) has the
< responsibility of determining, for its purposes, which representations
< might be considered to be the "same".

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 15:18:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC