On 03.02.2013, at 19:07, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> Jan - I keep suffering from not reading the messages carefully - you are referring to the acceptance within your own project, which I guess is a good indication of the usefulness of this media type - sorry;
Hey, no problem. You are right anyhow.
>
> I'm with Marek though and I saw you had agreed to his proposal; I'd also suggest to do the same for WADL media type - whatever people say we are seeing WADL being useful to users, I'm sure the same is the case in RI...
>
Well, yes. I am against WADL as a design time contract, but it is a great 'tool' for server-side stuff, e.g. generating test. It could also be a *runtime* form language (which would be RESTful) ... so I am not against the media type :-)
Jan
> Sergey
>
> On 03/02/13 17:57, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> On 02/02/13 06:46, Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Mark Nottingham is working on a draft that I consider a key ingredient
>>> to RESTful work. Given it is done by Mark and given the experience and
>>> great developer acceptance I am experiencing in my current project,
>>> I'd say the media type is here to stay.
>>>
>>> I suggest we put it into the spec as a constant in 2.0
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-json-home-02
>>>
>>> I think he should rename it to maybe application/home+json because I
>>> actually see use cases for the +xxx suffixes.
>>>
>>> Should you like to put it in, I'd go ahead and ask him about the change.
>>
>> Interesting of course, but I'm not sure what are you talking about when
>> referring to a "great developer acceptance" - I'm of course not the one
>> to judge on it but it is the first time I'm hearing about it, thanks for
>> the link though :-), I'll definitely keep an eye
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>
>