On 11/4/10 12:25 PM, Bradley Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ian Davis<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Bradley Allen<[email protected]> wrote:
Basically what you are saying is: if I have a single URI that responds
to an HTTP GET with (X)HTML+RDFa by default, and supports other RDF
serializations through content negotiation, then all of that can be
done without recourse to a 303 redirect and should be perfectly
compatible with linked data best practice.
That is what I would like to see and what I believe is possible. It's
not current practice, so I'm seeking a change.
I am in violent agreement. It is long past due that someone made this
point. As has been said been said earlier, this simplifies
implementation, eliminates unnecessary traffic and is completely
transparent to linked data clients that do content negotiation. - BPA
Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
Bradley,
When did you loose this option? (X)HTML+RDFa is another mechanism
structured data representation. One that doesn't mandate Apache (bottom
line) for deployment. Just drop the resource wherever, and you're done
re. your Web of Linked Data contribution.
303 redirection has never been a mandate. Separating Names from
Addresses has, and should be a mandate -- assuming this is where this
debate is headed.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
