- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:28:34 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 21:09 +0200, 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? Some combination of the two. (a) I'm inclined to update the HTML media type spec to say that in a document with head/@profile present, what fragments refer to is not necessarily sections of the document; it's whatever the profile says it is (e.g. baseball players discussed in the document, etc). (b) publishing only RDF without the HTML is pretty useful. If you decide later that you want HTML, you can add it. Note that it suffices to do a 303 redirect for .html; you don't need to redirect in both cases. You can just return the RDF in a 200 response to GET /doc . -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 19:28:40 UTC