Mime type, was: Re: [rdfweb-dev] seeAlso

Dan Brickley danbri at w3.org
Tue Aug 12 09:23:28 UTC 2003

* Jim Ley <jim at jibbering.com> [2003-08-12 09:13-0000]
> "Ian Davis" <iand at internetalchemy.org>
> > Chris Croome said:
> > > I'm guilty here -- all the RSS, RDF and FOAF files I have generated are
> > > served as application/xml for the simple reason that the other mime
> > > types cause a prompt to download the files in Mozilla rather
> > > than opening them...
> >
> > It shouldn't really matter if the crawler sends multiple accept types.
> > What's the best order to send? I'd suggest:
> >
> > Accept: application/rdf+xml; application/rss+xml; application/xml;
> > text/plain; text/xml
> Order makes no difference! see my other post for a suggestion.  and I think
> we need */* as I expect some of RDF would be coming along in new
> experimental mime-types, we may want to specifically reject text/html with
> q=0 values, to prevent us getting that.

Tricky... there's work underway to make it possible to embed RDF within
HTML documents while still having the HTML portion be XML schema
validatable, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/
We'd probably want to scoop out such RDF. Hmm this is tangled with the 
debate happening elsewhere about appropriate content-type to send XHTML as...


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list