Providing conneg responses to filenames without extension, and mapping to corresponding formats
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 563
- Forks
- 108
- Avg merge
- 4d 13h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
How can /foo be accessed with content-negotiation such that they physically map to corresponding files /foo.html , /foo.ttl etc. Is the mapping something that Solid already provides (or could provide) or is that out of scope?
If this is missing, I think it is an important enough feature to have. if for example, /foo is described like: /foo dcterms:hasFormat /foo.ttl . /foo.ttl a dcterms:MediaType ; rdfs:label "text/turtle" . and so on, Solid can silently do the rewriting and give the corresponding response. Something along these lines could give way to having cool URIs
I think one thing we need to look closer is how do we (humans) or a solid server does the mapping. One way to do it may be for solid servers to automatically respond to requests for paths which have a "well known" extension, i.e., foo.ttl, foo.html, foo.rdf exists, and so /foo will do the rewriting to one of those based on conneg.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the proposed /foo mapping to /foo.html, /foo.ttl, and /foo.rdf alongside the content-negotiation question. Define whether Solid provides this or whether it is out of scope, and document how a server should choose among well-known extensions and corresponding formats.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100