Re: [rest-discuss] Content types and links
- Thats already there I just posted one of the formats of atom that can be gotten (+xml is also supported as is text + html) it depends what you send in your accept header or url (yes I know this is "bad" but dealt with many that have problems getting headers working in their environments)The question was more is it worthwhile to send all of them if you have already picked one but I guess its fine to send. Guess it makes sense though that in some use case you could want one one way and another another way.re: mediatype we switched it.Cheers,GregOn Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Peter Williams <pezra@...> wrote:On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Greg Young <gregoryyoung1@...> wrote:Putting alternate links in the body is ok, but putting them in the
> Would it seem off to you that I gave you the alternates?
HTTP header as link header fields would better. It would make them
visible to clients that do not understand how to interprete your
particular flavor of JSON. Those clients are likely to be the ones
that need alternate links the most.
Also, you should strongly consider identifying your flavor of JSON
with a vendor media type. Doing so allows clients to request (and
interprete) its particular semantics. Having a specific media type is
particularly helpful if/when you are going to serve more than one
flavor of JSON. For example, if a standard atom+json ever really did
come to fruition you would probably want to support both, for a while
Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.