Re: [rest-discuss] The "new media types are evil" meme
- I've been reading this thread whilst writing up some blog posts on the subject and was rereading the specs for "Content-Disposition", and it the spec mentions:
disposition := "Content-Disposition" ":" disposition-type *(";" disposition-parm) disposition-type := "inline" / "attachment" / extension-token ; values are not case-sensitiveLooking at the extension-token specs elsewhere it would look like it'd be acceptable for us rest-nazi's to adopt something like:
Content-Disposition: inline; concept=customer
(or even rel=customer if we wanted to keep some form of consistent naming ). This at least covers declaring the disposition / concept we're returning, and it looks like the SIP protocol proposed the Accept-Disposition header  and from cursory reading around this looks like this would be a valid (existing) method for defining these concept.s
Am I wrong?
"Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson, Porcupine Tree
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Paul Cohen <pacoispaco@...> wrote:
Maybe the term "conceptual type" was unfortunate. My point in the
discussion was that it may be of interest to talk about the concepts
and information a service is meant to provide in order to then be able
to reason about what media types to use or invent for a given service.
- On 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%c2%a0Roy
> 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).