- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:10:33 +1300
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 13/12/2011 5:26 p.m., mike amundsen wrote: > Amos: > > in the example i attached: > > X-Accept-Types: text/html,text/xml,application/json > is what clients can use when negotiating responses from servers > > X-Content-Types: text/xml,application/x-www-form-urlencoded,application/json > is what clients can use when constructing bodies that will be sent to servers > > There might be better names for these two cases. Thanks. Yes different names would be better to clarify that for the casual traffic observer. Since OPTIONS is all about the server resource I guessed from the chosen names that Content-Types was types emitted by the server in Content-Type header, and "Accept-Types" being the values it understood in the Accept header. Which should be the same set. Since this proposal for opening Accept to mean what your X-Content-Types does, are you in a position to reverse the definitions easily? eg by changing X-Content-Types => Accept, and X-Accept-Types => Content-Types (with no "X-"). I might join you and make a second RESTful implementation along the same lines if this convention passes acceptance of the experts here. AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:11:14 UTC