W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:16:18 -0400
Message-Id: <67A7CF38-DE89-4016-903A-479923C54528@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, T.V Raman <raman@google.com>, "seb@serialseb.com" <seb@serialseb.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "tthibodeau@openlinksw.com" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

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.

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:16:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC