RE: Content Negotation vs. Extensions

From: Jerome Louvel <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:00:13 +0200

Hi Stefan,

As serving files from directories on the file systems is not really in our
scope, I think that when users need to specify a special media type that
they want to get, they have two options:

1) Adjust their "Accept" header to force the conneg to return a specific
2) Rely on a query parameter like "media=application/xml"

Note that the ".xml" extension is more ambiguous than "application/xml" or

We could even automate the translation of the "media" parameter into an
"Accept:" header like we do in the Restlet framework:

Best regards,

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stefan Tilkov []
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2007 12:12
> À :
> Objet : Content Negotation vs. Extensions
> I know the "right" way to do return different representations of a
> resource is via content negotiation. Still, in many cases it's
> perceived to be easier to use different extensions for
> different types.
> E.g. I could do a GET on to
> get the
> default representation, say in HTML, and use
> customers/4711.xml to get an XML representation. Whether this is
> "good" or "bad" doesn't really matter IMO; it's going to
> definitely a
> common approach. How do we address this?
> Stefan
> --
> Stefan Tilkov,
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail: