– DRAFT –
Content (Negotiation) Subgroup
06 June 2018
<LarsG> Action-123?
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<trackbot> Sorry, LarsG, I don't understand 'trackbot, associate this channes with #dxwg'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
<LarsG> Action-123?
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
previous plenary content discussed
this group is waiting for Requirements finalisation from theplenary group
this group commits to aligning different implementations of profileneg mechanisms
Yes, this seems to be emerging from the Plenary group's workj
yes, we will resolve this by alining implementations (HTTP layer, browser layer) and also b following web norms (exact URIs trump HTTP headers)
example: gnafld.net/address/GAACT714845933?_view=alternates
discussed at length!
example: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/tree/gh-pages/profiledesc/examples
we understand this is analagous to SPARQL queries not finding upper classes due to systems not doing inferencing up subClassOf chains
we could advertise something like "make sure you set fallback options in an Accpept-Profile header"
we admit we don't have all the answers when servers don't know they contain information according to a Profile of other Profiles/Standards they don't know about and can't advertise
The direction of profile work is being set now by Plenary group.
Looks like we will have a technology-independent Profiling Gudance document then 3 technology-specific implementations: HTTP profile neg, in-browser profile neg, Profile Dec ontology
In a fortnight