Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[my original reply arrived back here empty - apologies if you get this
twice]
Michael, That approach assumes that these parameters will be understood and acted upon by the server delivering the requested resource. In the use case which started me on this line of thought, a single "abstract" URL stands for a resource. See: http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ for background. In order to get at a "non-information" resource which is referenced in this way, you have to play the "303 See Other" game to get the URL which references the RDF description of the resource. Therefore Andrew's suggestion of a proxy server to inject an Accept header into the request is the sort of thing you would have to do. More generally, it occurred to me that it would make sense for XSLT processors to include "Accept: text/xml" in the header when fetching resources referenced by HTTP URLs, given that anything other than XML won't be much use, and this Accept instruction might just change what the server delivers for the better. From what you say below, deciding on such an approach would be very much in the hands of the individual XSLT processor. Richard In message <40177577E6B94B85953BF378B6E8BA3F@Sealion>, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes Can XSLT 2.0 do content negotiation? Looking at the Linking Open Data work, it seems to me that it would be useful if XSLT processors could specify in the document() function that what they want is, for example, application/rdf+xml. Then they could be served the RDF version of a Semantic Web resource, rather than the HTML "human-readable" version.
|
