-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should all responses have the anno json-ld profile? #39
Comments
Does that imply we should add some SHOULD language around it? If so, +1 |
+1 to SHOULD |
fine with me Ivan Ivan Herman (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
|
+1 to SHOULD |
2 similar comments
+1 to SHOULD |
+1 to SHOULD |
Noting https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6839#section-3.1 regarding requirements around *+json [from SocialWG discussion on content types]. Also in latest HTTP spec, the ability to provide a media type parameter is clarified as possible in the Accept header, thus making content negotiation using media types feasible. There was some statements that it's not necessarily implemented ... but neither is conneg :) |
😄 |
Should all responses from Annotation Servers where the entity-body is a serialized annotation have a Content-Type of application/json+ld with the profile URI for the annotation profile? As most servers will have to explicitly set the content-type header, rather than allowing it to be set by an upstream system (such as apache's mod_mime_magic or similar) the implementation cost seems low.
It doesn't seem totally necessary, but could be useful for systems that do support multiple profiles. Better to be liberal with what you accept and strict with what you send.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: