On 01/31/2014 01:46 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:
Hi all
regarding opaque uri: maybe a difference in the scheme could be seen as
a complementary to a different type extension.
If i'm referring for example to the resource http://wiki/page.html or
http://wiki/page.rdf i probably expect two different representation on
the same resource, from a technical REST-like approach. Should we
interpet also those as opaques?
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity
"For example, the ".html" at the end of "http://example.com/page.html";
provides no guarantee that representations of the identified resource
will be served with the Internet media type "text/html". The publisher
is free to allocate identifiers and define how they are served. The HTTP
protocol does not constrain the Internet media type based on the path
component of the URI; the URI owner is free to configure the server to
return a representation using PNG or any other data format."
Besides above, I find .rdf *very* confusing! with RDFa one can get RDF
graph serialized in HTML, or get same graph as any of of other
serializations:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-new-20131217/#section-serializations
To my understanding Content Negotiation enables requesting particular
representation of given resource
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation
Sorry if this is probably a sort of recurring question.
If the formats for type extension are acceptable, the best would be in
using also the schem much like in the same way. For example I suppose
that I could have also have something like: file://wiki/page.html, for a
local copy. Is this acceptable in theory?
Based on reasoning above *type extensions* do NOT seem to me acceptable
for requesting different representation of the same resource!
