Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

On 3/28/2012 10:26 PM, トーレ エリクソン wrote:
> HTML Document resources represent themselves.

Yes, but let's also keep in mind that many, many non-HTML document
resources are served as HTML representations.

Example: let's say I have a resource that is the text of the US Declaration
of Independence. I mint a URI for it, and as the URI assignment authority I
can assure that the resource is the text of the declaration, not some
particular encoding of it in HTML.

It's perfectly reasonable for me to serve this as text/html (or text/plain,
or maybe even as image/jpeg if the image shows a rendering of the text).
So, even in the case where the resource is a document, the media type
doesn't tell us much about the nature of the resource. We therefore need to
be careful when speaking about "HTML" resources; much of what's served with
HTML representations is not in any deeper sense an HTML resource.

As you say, in the particular case where the resource in question >is <
intended to be, specifically, an HTML document, then text/html is a fine
way to serve it.


Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 15:31:53 UTC