> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

> in PHP for example:

> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>     header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>     echo "......."
> }
> else{
>     echo "...."
> }

> I did this at http://www.juansequeda.com/id/

> However, there is a difference when it is /id and /id/. When I  
> dereference http://www.juansequeda.com/id I get a 301 (Moved  
> Permanently) but with http://www.juansequeda.com/id/ I get 200 (and  
> everything validated by Vapour!).

> As this ever been discussed? I can obviously see the drawback of  
> having /id/ vs /id .

> On Jul 15, 2009, at 09:43 AM, Juan Sequeda wrote:

>  and the objective is not to start another long philosophical thread :P and
>> it may be a very dumb question

>> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

>> in PHP for example:

>> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>>    header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>>    echo "......."
>> }
>> else{
>>    echo "...."
>> }

>> I did this at http://www.juansequeda.com/id/

>> However, there is a difference when it is /id and /id/. When I dereference
>> http://www.juansequeda.com/id I get a 301 (Moved Permanently) but with
>> http://www.juansequeda.com/id/ I get 200 (and everything validated by
>> Vapour!).

>> As this ever been discussed? I can obviously see the drawback of having
>> /id/ vs /id .

> I think that's not a content negotiation issue, but rather a resource
> specification issue.

> /id/ is a directory, and you're actually asking for the Directory Index.
> The specific resource will typically be something like /id/index.html,
> and be determined by the server.

> /id is a specific resource -- though some servers may rewrite it to
> /id/ if there is such a directory and no such resource -- as yours
> appears to be doing.

> Or have I misunderstood?

> Ted

> --
> A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibod...@openlinksw.com
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>                                 http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
> OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
>                               http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen/>
>    Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers

> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

> in PHP for example:

> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>     header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>     echo "......."
> }
> else{
>     echo "...."
> }

> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

> in PHP for example:

> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>    header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>    echo "......."
> }
> else{
>    echo "...."
> }

> I did this at http://www.juansequeda.com/id/

> However, there is a difference when it is /id and /id/. When I  
> dereference
> http://www.juansequeda.com/id I get a 301 (Moved Permanently) but with
> http://www.juansequeda.com/id/ I get 200 (and everything validated by
> Vapour!).

> As this ever been discussed? I can obviously see the drawback of  
> having /id/
> vs /id .

> Comments?

> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
> Dept. of Computer Sciences
> The University of Texas at Austin
> www.juansequeda.com
> www.semanticwebaustin.org

> On 15 Jul 2009, at 15:43, Juan Sequeda wrote:

>> and the objective is not to start another long philosophical thread :P and
>> it may be a very dumb question

>> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

>> in PHP for example:

>> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>>   header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>>   echo "......."
>> }
>> else{
>>   echo "...."
>> }

> A typical Accept header sent by an RDF client can look like this:

> text/html;q=0.3, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.3, text/plain;q=0.1,
> text/rdf+n3, text/n3, application/n3, application/x-turtle,
> application/turtle, text/turtle, application/rdf+xml, text/rdf,
> text/rdf+xml, application/rdf, application/xml;q=0.2, text/xml;q=0.2

> A typical Accept header sent by a Web browser can look like this:

> application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,imag e/png,*/*;q=0.5

> As you can see, your code above will not work. You really need a proper
> implementation of content negotiation rather than such simplistic hacks.

> Vapour just checks some very simple cases. A green light from Vapour does
> not necessarily mean that your content negotiation works with any real
> client. (Unfortunately! I wish it was better at validating conneg.)

> (The former header is from the any23 library in default configuration. The
> latter is from Safari. Note that modern RDF clients can consume several RDF
> syntaxes, including RDFa.)

> About the "/id/" vs. "/id" thing. This behaviour is more or less hardcoded
> in Apache and similar web servers. After you follow the 301 redirect at
> "/id", you get the same 200 at "/id/". Essentially this means that "/id/"
> and "/id" identify the same resource, and that resource is a document.

> Best,
> Richard

>> I did this at http://www.juansequeda.com/id/

>> However, there is a difference when it is /id and /id/. When I dereference
>> http://www.juansequeda.com/id I get a 301 (Moved Permanently) but with
>> http://www.juansequeda.com/id/ I get 200 (and everything validated by
>> Vapour!).

>> As this ever been discussed? I can obviously see the drawback of having
>> /id/
>> vs /id .

>> Comments?

>> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
>> Dept. of Computer Sciences
>> The University of Texas at Austin
>> www.juansequeda.com
>> www.semanticwebaustin.org

> What are the drawbacks of this simple solution.

> in PHP for example:

> if($_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'] == "application/rdf+xml" ){
>     header('Content-type: application/rdf+xml');
>     echo "......."
> }
> else{
>     echo "...."
> }