- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:14:08 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > On 28 Sep 2007, at 20:24, Dan Connolly wrote: >> The 303 redirect stuff is almost always more trouble than it's worth. >> I can't think of any cases other than legacy when I'd recommend it. >> Using doc#term is much more straightforward. > > I'm surprised to hear that. > > As I understand it, <doc#term> without 303 can't handle content > negotiation. > > If RDF is served at <doc>, then <doc#term> identifies whatever the RDF > says about it (so it could be anything). If HTML is served at <doc>, > then <doc#term> clearly identifies a section of an HTML document. To me, > that seems like an unacceptable ambiguity. A 303 from <doc> to <doc.rdf> > and <doc.html> is needed to resolve this. > > So, are you saying that content negotiation is not worth the trouble, or > that the ambiguity doesn't matter? As an aside ... TAG might want to take a good look at how #foo works in RDFa, when the syntax TR comes out... Potentially RDFa gives us something that can serve as a human readable and a machine readable namespace doc. Optimistically, Dan
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 01:14:30 UTC