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

Re: Question about the On Linking Alternative Representations TAG Finding

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:25:45 -0400
Message-ID: <48921FC9.3050502@openlinksw.com>
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

Amen :-)



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

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