Accept header recipe in Best Practices

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Accept header recipe in Best Practices

Tim Berners-Lee

Comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/

The recipe for responding to an accept header only respond to a  
header hich EXACTLY matches
"application/rdf+xml".    However, a client may send (and often will)  
a header with many  comma-separated values, and they may have quality  
parameters (q=0.xx).

This is a serious problem as people are copying the recipe, and  
making we sites which do not work.

If some version of the document could be fixed as soon as possible to  
a recipe that works it would be great.

Tim BL




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Accept header recipe in Best Practices

Chris Welty-2


Tim,

I think this went to the wrong list (the old SWBP list).

-Chris

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>
> Comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/
>
> The recipe for responding to an accept header only respond to a header
> hich EXACTLY matches
> "application/rdf+xml".    However, a client may send (and often will) a
> header with many  comma-separated values, and they may have quality
> parameters (q=0.xx).
>
> This is a serious problem as people are copying the recipe, and making
> we sites which do not work.
>
> If some version of the document could be fixed as soon as possible to a
> recipe that works it would be great.
>
> Tim BL
>
>
>
>

--
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
[hidden email]                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Accept header recipe in Best Practices

Ralph R. Swick

At 12:12 PM 7/17/2007 -0400, Chris Welty wrote:
>I think this went to the wrong list (the old SWBP list).

That's where the Working Draft said to send comments so TimBL did
as instructed.

Fear not, the SWD WG was paying attention (thanks, Jon!)

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/58