- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:49:20 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 07:17 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: . . . > 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. FWIW, I agree. And this view seems well aligned with the current AWWW guidance on fragment identifiers: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#frag-coneg [[ The representation provider decides when definitions of fragment identifier semantics are are sufficiently consistent. ]] David Booth > > 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 > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 15:49:49 UTC