Re: [rest-discuss] Content negotiation unRESTful?
- On 3/31/08 10:06 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Hmm...wonder how one would do this with an Atom entry's content,The atom:entry represents a particular resource with whatever content is
> where there can only be one content which also should have a media
> type attribute set.
specified by the atom:content element.
The proper way to represent other types of representations of the same
atom:entry would be to use an atom:link with a rel attribute of "alternate" and
a type attribute for the specific media type represented by the URI in the link
You can have multiple "alternate" atom:link elements provided that there is not
more than one with the same combination of type and hreflang.
- 303 and httpRange-14 is a benefit.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Subbu Allamaraju
Sent: 31 March 2008 16:07
To: Jan Algermissen
Cc: Stefan Tilkov; REST Discuss
Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Content negotiation unRESTful?
Strictly speaking, this is still agent-driven content-negotiation, and
the redirect you are proposing may be an implementation detail. IMO,
this redirect is not necessary. There is no need for each
representation to get its own URI, and in some cases, it could create
unnecessary proliferation without extra benefits.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> After taking a glance at it: I am not sure about the way he quotes
> Roy or XML vs JSON being mechanical etc. but I think it is generally
> correct not to deliver different media types through the same
> resource. If you have several, then publish a single URI that
> redirects to media type specific ones based upon the Accept header.
> That way every resource gets its own URI which gives the client more
Yahoo! Groups Links