accept: 'application/rdf+xml, text/rdf;q=0.6, application/n-triples, text/plain;q=0.1, text/turtle, application/x-turtle, application/turtle, text/n3;q=0.3, text/rdf+n3;q=0.3, application/rdf+n3;q=0.3, application/x-trig, application/rss;q=0.8, application/rss+xml;q=0.8, text/rss;q=0.8, application/xml;q=0.3, text/xml;q=0.3, application/atom+xml;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.2, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.4, text/html;q=0.6, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.8, text/x-nquads, */*;q=0.1'
This works fine as long as RDF/XML is supported by the server. However, if the server only serves Turtle or NTriples, the server will answer to that with HTML before a RDF serialization.
RDF/XML is no longer supported by all servers out there so I would propose to give Turtle and NTriples a higher priority than HTML to make sure we get RDF back if it is supported by the server.
Can you be more specific.
Turtle / N3 family 0.1 to 1.0
application/n-triples, text/plain;q=0.1, text/turtle, application/x-turtle, application/turtle, text/n3;q=0.3, text/rdf+n3;q=0.3, application/rdf+n3;q=0.3, application/x-trig
HTML range 0.2-0.8
text/html;q=0.2, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.4, text/html;q=0.6, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.8
What would I raise and what lower?
Redland is still quite popular so I would like to know if we do something wrong or if Redland needs to adjust its request. I'm a bit lost here, maybe @retog could have a look at that and compare it with content-negotiation specs?