Comments on: How to request content types (XML, XHTML, JSON, etc.) from RESTful services? http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270 The UW blog for all things Resource Oriented Architecture & web services - email appdev@u.washington.edu Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:23:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Lucian D http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270&cpage=1#comment-98 Lucian D Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:25:51 +0000 http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270#comment-98 I agree-explicit file extension in the URI is the best approach. I agree-explicit file extension in the URI is the best approach.

]]> By: rberk http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270&cpage=1#comment-67 rberk Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:13:39 +0000 http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270#comment-67 Matt, I agree that xhtml makes sense for a default format particularly for the reason you mention that it's what clients of the existing UW business web services already expect. Thanks for your feedback on this. Matt, I agree that xhtml makes sense for a default format particularly for the reason you mention that it’s what clients of the existing UW business web services already expect.

Thanks for your feedback on this.

]]> By: Matt H http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270&cpage=1#comment-61 Matt H Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:59:22 +0000 http://depts.washington.edu/ontheroa/?p=270#comment-61 I'm a fan of the explicit file extension in the URI... seems like the cleanest approach to me (and I'm a Rails guy, so that's what I'm used to). Your default extensionless URI is also a great idea. I would expect that default URI to load up the xhtml version of the resource, for two reasons: xhtml is already what users expect as your "default" format, and xhtml will render in a browser for human consumption. Seems like a default format should render something that a human can understand. I’m a fan of the explicit file extension in the URI… seems like the cleanest approach to me (and I’m a Rails guy, so that’s what I’m used to). Your default extensionless URI is also a great idea. I would expect that default URI to load up the xhtml version of the resource, for two reasons: xhtml is already what users expect as your “default” format, and xhtml will render in a browser for human consumption. Seems like a default format should render something that a human can understand.

]]>