I have a (potentially flawed) mental model of the general categories of resources:
I was asking for confirmation that the determination of RDF resources vs. Container was based on the
/ (which you confirmed above)
And that it is up to the client to determine RDF vs. non-RDF based on
Content-Type header — based on which content types the client can process as RDF.
Accept-Patch: application/sparql-update). The other clue is that the
Content-Typeheader will be an RDF syntax that the client understands
@Vinnl_gitlab You said "not send Accept header" was recommended but I don't see it at the link you've provided.
:point_up: January 4, 2021 9:18 PM @csarven I asked whether I can be sure that I won't get a Content Type of Turtle or JSON+LD if I didn't send an Accept header in the follow-up message, to which @acoburn responded affirmatively.
Accept-Patch: application/sparql-updateheader rather than such a Content-Type might be more explicit - at least in my case, I want to know whether such a PATCH will have the desired effect.
@Vinnl_gitlab RFC 7231:
A request without any Accept header field implies that the user agent
will accept any media type in response.
The Solid Protocol doesn't specify how servers should respond to requests without a Accept header. It is within server's right to reject or respond with an "appropriate" representation.
In the case of resources having an existing representation ie. can be represented with a concrete RDF syntax, then server must accept requests including Accept: text/turtle, application/ld+json. If no Accept header targeting those resources, server can indeed respond with something other than Turtle or JSON-LD.
Silent non-normative: servers might want to / maybe even encouraged to respond with Turtle or JSON-LD if it is "appropriate" (re RDFable resources) so that clients can presumably work with the response. But this is really edge-case territory because clients should indicate which media types they are able to accept.
There is no "default format" per se. Reasonable Variability.
https://frederick.trinpod.us/@as subject, with this approach
https://frederick.trinpod.us/profile/card#mewould not be used any more
@elf-pavlik So completely removing #me from the picture would still be spec compliant as long as profile/card is in use? (My worry was that devs would hard code /profile/card#me)
if devs hardcode something like that their application wouldn't comply with the spec,
/profile/card#me is just convention specific to internal choice of one implementation, clients have to "follow their nose"