As a subscriber of this meme Craig mentioned, I ll give a few of the reasons using a generic media type is the better option: - they avoid you having toMessage 1 of 245 , Dec 28 1:44 AMView SourceAs a subscriber of this 'meme' Craig mentioned, I'll give a few of the
reasons using a generic media type is the better option:
- they avoid you having to reinvent the wheel (i.e. linking to and
embedding of resources)
- they bring existing client/server tooling that can be re-used in
- as further tooling is developed and improved over time your
application will benefit
- they avoid the temptation to type resources via the media type identifier
- they establish a ubiquitous interface against which more
sophisticated clients/servers/intermediary mechanisms can emerge
Is someone able to put together a similar list for the "new media
types are awesome" meme?
... The way i read that post, message type is a way for the client to inform the server how it has decided to use a particular link. Not a way for the serverMessage 245 of 245 , Jan 12, 2012View SourceOn Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Darrel Miller <darrel.miller@...> wrote:
> In thisThe way i read that post, message type is a way for the client to
> post http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Unifying---standardizing-X-Moz---X-Purpose-headers-p29794338.html Roy
> talks about the notion of passive links in Waka. Without putting works into
> Roy's mouth, this is what I consider to be a LE.
inform the server how it has decided to use a particular link. Not a
way for the server to tell the client how it should use a particular
link. Ie, it would be ok for a client to dereference a `img` tag link
as an active request (or any other valid value, for that matter).