Mime type, was: Re: [rdfweb-dev] seeAlso
danbri at w3.org
Tue Aug 12 18:27:25 UTC 2003
* Julian Bond <julian_bond at voidstar.com> [2003-08-12 19:20+0100]
> Chris Croome <chris at webarchitects.co.uk> wrote:
> >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...
> Rather ironic that an application that uses RDF extensively internally
> can't cope with the mime type externally. Incidentally, has anyone found
> a workaround for this, perhaps by hacking mimeTypes.rdf?
I looked into this, all set to build my own RDF-friendly version.
Sadly it needs C code changes in a dozen different places, see
patch (for SVG's content type) linked from
> I'm not sure all this worrying about mime types is worth it. If the
> first line begins "<?xml" and a line shortly after that begins
> "<rdf:RDF", you can be pretty sure it's RDF+XML. As a scutter looking
> for rdf files (as opposed to html with embedded rdf) you can probably
> discard anything else.
As a heuristic, that'll probably match most RDF/XML docs. For many folk,
altering the Web server config to support different content type headers
is not an option, so I agree we should be flexible, pragmatic etc...
More information about the foaf-dev