[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No new mime types
2006/7/20, Henry Story:
On 20 Jul 2006, at 17:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Big +1 and well-said.
> It's easy to forget that the user-agent (or other consuming
> software) isn't the only thing working with this stuff.
I don't quite understand what you are saying. In the following link
<link rel="categories" href="/cats"/>
which we can understand as pointing to a resource that gives a list
of categories available to the poster, there is no need to specify
the mime type of the representations served by </cats>.
The @type attribute can be used for Agent-Driven Content Negotiation:
It can be used:
- by the client to whoose the right IRI, in case the @href values are
different for the same @rel, @type and @hreflang (i.e. in case there
is no server-driven conneg)
- to advertise which representations are available at a given URI, in
case the @href values are equal (i.e. in case there _is_ server-driven
And remember that the @type attribute is not mandatory and that its
value when present is only advisory.
We know that the resource should give us a list of categories. Now if
we queried it using application/rdf+xml we could get a list of cats using
the atom-owl ontology  for example. We could also get a representation
back in html perhaps for people who would like to browse the
categories, the way I explain in "GET my meaning?" .
That's true if there if the server does conneg.
But the client still needs to advertise which media-type it accepts.
On the Web, you do need media-types !!!
Also, I don't know much thing about RDF, but couldn't categories be
expressed in more than one ontology? I mean, you're talking about the
"atom owl", but couldn't there be other ones capable of representing
categories? If the client only supports atom owl, how does it
advertise it to the server so he get served the corresponding RDF?