| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 6:21 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 7:13 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 7:22 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 7:59 am | |
| Giovanni Tummarello | Nov 4, 2010 8:20 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 8:22 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 8:27 am | |
| Leigh Dodds | Nov 4, 2010 8:38 am | |
| William Waites | Nov 4, 2010 8:43 am | |
| Giovanni Tummarello | Nov 4, 2010 8:50 am | |
| Leigh Dodds | Nov 4, 2010 8:53 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 8:55 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 8:57 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 9:06 am | |
| Bradley Allen | Nov 4, 2010 9:06 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 9:10 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 9:13 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 9:16 am | |
| bill...@planet.nl | Nov 4, 2010 9:20 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 9:22 am | |
| Bradley Allen | Nov 4, 2010 9:25 am | |
| Harry Halpin | Nov 4, 2010 9:33 am | |
| Robin YANG | Nov 4, 2010 9:51 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 9:54 am | |
| David Wood | Nov 4, 2010 9:56 am | |
| Mike Kelly | Nov 4, 2010 10:12 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 10:13 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Nov 4, 2010 10:17 am | |
| David Wood | Nov 4, 2010 10:24 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Nov 4, 2010 10:36 am | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 10:51 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 11:06 am | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 11:07 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Nov 4, 2010 11:08 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 11:18 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 11:24 am | |
| Robert Fuller | Nov 4, 2010 11:38 am | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 11:38 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 11:41 am | |
| Jörn Hees | Nov 4, 2010 11:45 am | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 11:46 am | |
| Robert Fuller | Nov 4, 2010 11:48 am | |
| Ian Davis | Nov 4, 2010 11:58 am | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:00 pm | |
| Harry Halpin | Nov 4, 2010 12:03 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:07 pm | |
| Jörn Hees | Nov 4, 2010 12:10 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:12 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:14 pm | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 12:26 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 12:36 pm | |
| David Wood | Nov 4, 2010 12:56 pm | |
| Hugh Glaser | Nov 4, 2010 12:59 pm | |
| David Wood | Nov 4, 2010 1:14 pm | |
| Nathan | Nov 4, 2010 1:22 pm | |
| Bradley Allen | Nov 4, 2010 1:40 pm | |
| Mischa Tuffield | Nov 4, 2010 2:09 pm | |
| David Booth | Nov 4, 2010 3:09 pm | |
| David Booth | Nov 4, 2010 3:11 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 3:24 pm | |
| mike amundsen | Nov 4, 2010 3:26 pm | |
| Melvin Carvalho | Nov 4, 2010 3:48 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 4:31 pm | |
| Kingsley Idehen | Nov 4, 2010 4:42 pm | |
| 86 later messages | ||
| Subject: | Re: Is 303 really necessary? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Bradley Allen (brad...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Nov 4, 2010 9:06:49 am | |
| List: | org.w3.public-lod | |
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.
Is that correct?
Bradley P. Allen http://bradleypallen.org
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Ian Davis <me...@iandavis.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Giovanni Tummarello <giov...@deri.org> wrote:
I think it's an orthogonal issue to the one RDFa solves. How should I use RDFa to respond to requests to http://iandavis.com/id/me which is a URI that denotes me?
hashless?
mm one could be to return HTML + RDFa describing yourself. add a triple saying http://iandavis.com/id/me containstriplesonlyabouttheresourceandnoneaboutitselfasinformationresource
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying in my blog post.
its up to clients to really care about the distinction, i personally know of no useful clients for the web of data that will visibly misbehave if a person is mistaken for a page.. so your you can certify to your customer your solution works well with "any" client
Good to know. That's my sense too.
if one will come up which operates usefully on both people and pages and would benefit from making your distinction than those coding that client will definitely learn about your containstriplesonlyabouttheresourceandnoneaboutitselfasinformationresource and support it.
how about this ? :-)
Sounds good to me :)
as an alternative the post i pointed you earlier (the one about 203 406) did actually contain an answer i believe. 406 is perfect IMO .. I'd say a client which will care to make the distinction would learn to support it as in my previous example.
I'll look into that.
Ian





