Anthony Bryan wrote: > Eran Hammer-Lahav and Mark Nottingham have informed me that using > transparent content negotiation for serving a "description" of a file, > and not an alternative version (like PNG vs JPG) of the same thing has > been ruled against by the W3C TAG. see > http://esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions
Ugh, first we're told not to use file.iso#!metalink!file.metalink, and now this... But on second thought, discouraging this use seems correct in principle... > "Other ways of getting a description through HTTP > * Use content negotiation. If you ask for RDF, you get the > description. If you ask for something else, you get the thing > described. (The TAG, TimBL, and others have pointed out that this > contradicts web architecture, which requires that content negotiation > choose among things that all carry the same information. That goes for > CN between RDF and HTML as much as it does for CN between GIF and > JPEG.)" > > > the correct, web architecture complient way to do this is apparently > the HTTP Link header: > > Link: <http://example.com/resource.metalink>; rel="describedby"; > type="application/metalink+xml"; > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-01 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
