Re: Language Negotiation
2006/7/27, Eric Scheid: >> what would happen if you used conneg on the @rel='self' link (to the >> document), asking for a different language? > > You mean, sending an Accept-Language request-header? > > 406 Not Acceptable or return the entry even if it does not match the > "accepted languages". > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7 so, do not return the requested language alternate? Hmm, sorry, I think I didn't correctly understood you first question... ...at least I don't understand the second... -- Thomas Broyer
Re: Language Negotiation
Thomas Broyer wrote: > > 2006/7/27, James M Snell: >> >> And within feed documents in the form of language-qualified alternate >> links (e.g., , > rel="self" hreflang="de" href="..." />, etc) > > You rather meant type="application/atom+xml" href="..." /> hreflang="de" type="application/atom+xml" href="..." />, weren't you? > ;-) > Doh! Yeah. For some reason I've been transposing these two alot this week. Thx. - James
Re: Language Negotiation
On 27/7/06 7:42 PM, "Thomas Broyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> what would happen if you used conneg on the @rel='self' link (to the >> document), asking for a different language? > > You mean, sending an Accept-Language request-header? > > 406 Not Acceptable or return the entry even if it does not match the > "accepted languages". > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7 so, do not return the requested language alternate? e.
Re: Language Negotiation
2006/7/27, Eric Scheid: >> This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I >> agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different >> contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them >> different ids. what would happen if you used conneg on the @rel='self' link (to the document), asking for a different language? You mean, sending an Accept-Language request-header? 406 Not Acceptable or return the entry even if it does not match the "accepted languages". http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7 -- Thomas Broyer
Re: Language Negotiation
>> This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I >> agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different >> contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them >> different ids. what would happen if you used conneg on the @rel='self' link (to the document), asking for a different language? e.
Re: Language Negotiation
> > 2006/7/27, Sylvain Hellegouarch: >> >> > This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I >> > agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different >> > contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them >> > different ids. >> >> True. If you buy a book in English and then the translation of that book >> in a different language you will end up with two books having each their >> own ISBN. > > Well, actually, once a book is published, if you later update it, > you'll have to use a new ISBN, so that's probably not a good analogy⦠> Indeed but wasn't I only talking about different language version of a book? I haven't talked about updating a book ;) - Sylvain
Re: Language Negotiation
2006/7/27, Sylvain Hellegouarch: > This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I > agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different > contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them > different ids. True. If you buy a book in English and then the translation of that book in a different language you will end up with two books having each their own ISBN. Well, actually, once a book is published, if you later update it, you'll have to use a new ISBN, so that's probably not a good analogy… -- Thomas Broyer
Re: Language Negotiation
> This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I > agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different > contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them > different ids. True. If you buy a book in English and then the translation of that book in a different language you will end up with two books having each their own ISBN.
Re: Language Negotiation
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:40:58PM -0700, James M Snell wrote: > > What are you going to do about ids BTW? I'd probably mint new ids for > > the translated entries and feeds, and employ some sort of > > link/extension if you need to be able to associate them. > > I'd also lean towards minting new ids for translated resources. This took me quite a while to think through, but in the end I agree. Translations of a resource will often have slightly different contents in terms of the semantics of what is said, so I'd give them different ids. On the other hand, a way of subscribing to one feed that sometimes publishes in both English and (say) French, and only reading one translation of each would be handy. That's probably rel='alternate' within the atom:entry, though. James -- /--\ James Aylett xapian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] uncertaintydivision.org
Re: Language Negotiation
2006/7/27, James M Snell: And within feed documents in the form of language-qualified alternate links (e.g., , , etc) You rather meant , weren't you? ;-) From RFC4287: 1. The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies an alternate version of the resource described by the containing element. […] 3. The value "self" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element. Here, you're linking to alternate versions of the resource (in alternate languages), not to an "equivalent" resource (it's not equivalent, because it's in another language). …using xml:base rather than would have been so much cleaner… …or maybe at least rather a or , because the rationale of rel="self" were "if an aggregator is given a copy of a feed without information about its original IRI, how can it find which URI to subscribe to?"… -- Thomas Broyer
