- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:25:45 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, 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>, "tthibodeau@openlinksw.com" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > 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. > > -Alan > > Alan, Amen :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 20:26:30 UTC