On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >> > I think serving the JSON is the best option. Serving HTML from / > resource.json would defeat the purpose of having a JSON-specific > URI. It is quite likely that the user pasted the JSON URI into a > browser to test it, and *wants* to see the JSON that is returned. > Everyone knows how to paste a URI into a browser; few know how to > configure their browsers to specify their desired MIME types. I don't see how the best option is to ignore the accept header. If the accept header says to accept only html then you shouldn't respond with a different mime type as if that was an appropriate response. The 406 or 30x responses make more sense. It's like saying, in a negotiation, that it's a fine thing to ignore other negotiator and do what you want. Its not much of a negotiation in that case. -AlanReceived on Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:16:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:18 GMT