On 10/01/2011 14:16, Nathan wrote:
Phil Archer wrote:
On the Web in general, URIs don't, or certainly shouldn't, imply any
particular content type.
They don't imply anything, they name things, and the thing that's named
can by all means be a representation with a specific mediatype, infact
this is by far the most common usage of URIs, and always has been.
True, of course. But the fact that the identified resource is only
available in a single representation is not denoted by the identifier.
One might have reasonable expectations about
http://example.com/index.html but no more. The only authoritative
declaration of the content type of a resource is given in the HTTP
response headers received when dereferencing the identifier.
--
Phil Archer
Talis Systems Ltd,
Web: http://www.talis.com
Tel: +44 1473 434770
Twitter: philarcher1
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/philarcher
Personal: http://philarcher.org
