- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:29:41 -0500
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello eric. On 2013-01-24 19:30 , "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote: >text/ldp-container+turtle >text/ldp-resource+turtle >and of course the bastard combo text/ldp-cresource+turtle please keep in mind that you don't have to (and in fact shouldn't) define a new media type for each "kind" or resource you're exposing. the media type identifies the protocol, and thus covers whatever "kinds" of resources you are exchanging in the scope of the protocol. for understanding what you're actually dealing with, REST says that resources need to be "self-describing", and in the REST sense of this word in this context, this simply means that you look at the "protocol identifier" (the media type) and the resource (the "payload"), and then you know what you're dealing with. some media types (such as atompub, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-12.1) have felt the need (for protocol reasons) to make resource "kinds" identifiable in the media type, but then the preferred route is to use media type parameters instead of minting individual media types. cheers, dret.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 15:30:28 UTC