"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
I'm not sure if this helps or hinders the argument over the -xml suffix,
but I found something interesting at the W3C yesterday, and I'm still
pondering it.
http://www.w3.org/TR/photo-rdf/#Jigsaw1
It describes a simple extension to the Jigsaw server that bases the
behavior of the server on the MIME content-types that the client says it
will accept. It's only a W3C Note describing staff activity, not a working
draft on the main track.
The note is describing staff activity about a picture database sample
application. It is thatworkwhichis not on the main track.
The actual sending of different resources depending on the advertised
capabilities of the client is your basic HTTP content negotiation, as used
in Apache and other servers already, that was in the CERn server since the
year dot.
I'm wondering how this kind of content negotiation might or might not
integrate with the use of the -xml suffix, and how it might or might not
work if that suffix isn't used.
To me, it seems like there should be a way for a client to say "You can
send me your XML, and I'll give it my best shot", rather than "these are
the only twenty types I know of".
Accept: */*-xml;q=0.7, application/xml;q=0.5, text/xml;q=0.001
--
Chris