But I think it's the very very wide used kind to add the file type as
extension. This is also an easy way to allow it to be used by the
browser. The other accept properties (charset and encoding) are
technical things, what the user does not interest. But the file format
is interesting for the user, and also the language. Sometimes a user
want to override, what the default is in the browser.
Also the resource is identified by "/foo", independent of the media type
(or extension) and the langage. So I think it is also useful to put the
resource identifier in the front and the details of retrieving to the end.
BTW, I think, HTTP servers, e.g. apache, supports this feature vice
versa: request a file, e.g. "index.html", in english, than the apache
look for file index.html.en (or index.en.html?)
Stephan
Bill Burke schrieb:
> What I mean is isn't the convention:
>
> /html/en/us/foo
>
> rather than:
>
> /foo.en.html???
>
> In the spirit of REST, (reusing existing formats/styles), I vote the
> spec follows whatever the convention is rather than making up its own.
>
> Bill