Ted,
Again: The TAG disagrees.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html
Content negotiation is for selecting between different variants of a
*single* resource. It's not for redirecting you all over the place.
Best,
Richard
On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:31, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
Hi, Tom --
* Tom Heath [7/30/08 9:19 AM +0100] wrote:
If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting that the HTML
document about a pub should 303 to the RDF/XML document about the
pub if RDF/XML is requested, and vice versa. (please correct me
if I've misunderstood)
The above is correct -- if I ask for RDF/XML and the server cannot
provide that but *can* provide HTML, it should redirect me (303) to
the HTML (which I may decide I don't want to retrieve!). If I ask
for HTML and the server cannot provide that but *can* provide RDF
(whether RDF/XML or Turtle/N3 or ...), it should likewise redirect
(303) to that alternative (which, again, I may not pursue).
I should never get a `200 OK` delivering a document format not in
my Accept: header. This really applies whether or not you, as the
page author, have control over the web server. If it cannot provide
the content form requested by a client, the server should *always*
say so, offering whatever other form(s) it might know about as
alternatives via 303.
(And of course, the information in all 303-associated formats should
be the same, though it be presented differently.)
Is conneging on description pages desirable? i.e. if I request
http://revyu.com/people/tom/about/rdf
in my regular browser (e.g. vanilla Firefox), should I be
redirected to http://revyu.com/people/tom/about/html ?
Yes! Because *Firefox* wants HTML.
Firefox doesn't generically know how to handle application/rdf+xml,
nor application/x-turtle, nor application/turtle, and really only
pretends it knows how to handle text/rdf+n3...
It's important to use the right tool for the job. I can't very
well drive screws with a hammer, nor nails with a screwdriver.
Similarly, an RDF browser doesn't do well on HTML; an HTML browser
doesn't do well on RDF.
I don't think so, for the simple reason that I might be a developer
wishing to study/debug the RDF.
If I'm a developer wishing to study/debug the RDF, I should use
a tool which explicitly requests the RDF serialization(s) I want
to study -- which might be Turtle/N3, or RDF/XML, or... -- or
at least indicates Accept: *.
(Note -- this tool *might* be an *extended* Firefox, which *might*
be able to handle RDF/XML, in which case that should be included
in the Accept: header issued for relevant requests. You specified
vanilla Firefox in your example, so that's what I pursued.)
Be seeing you,
Ted
--
A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/
attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900
x32
Evangelism & Support //
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://
www.openlinksw.com/
http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
OpenLink Blogs http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/
virtuoso/
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers
