atom feed151 messages in org.w3.public-lodRe: Is 303 really necessary?
FromSent OnAttachments
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 6:21 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:13 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 7:22 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 7:59 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:20 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:22 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:27 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:38 am 
William WaitesNov 4, 2010 8:43 am 
Giovanni TummarelloNov 4, 2010 8:50 am 
Leigh DoddsNov 4, 2010 8:53 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 8:55 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 8:57 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:06 am 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 9:06 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:10 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:13 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 9:16 am 
bill...@planet.nlNov 4, 2010 9:20 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:22 am 
Bradley AllenNov 4, 2010 9:25 am 
Harry HalpinNov 4, 2010 9:33 am 
Robin YANGNov 4, 2010 9:51 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 9:54 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 9:56 am 
Mike KellyNov 4, 2010 10:12 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 10:13 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:17 am 
David WoodNov 4, 2010 10:24 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 10:36 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 10:51 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:06 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:07 am 
Patrick DurusauNov 4, 2010 11:08 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:18 am 
Ian DavisNov 4, 2010 11:24 am 
Robert FullerNov 4, 2010 11:38 am 
NathanNov 4, 2010 11:38 am 
Kingsley IdehenNov 4, 2010 11:41 am 
Jörn HeesNov 4, 2010 11:45 am 
111 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.