On Sep 9, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Twylite <twyl...@crypt.co.za> wrote: > >> e.g. "/timeline" produces HTML by default, but "/timeline.json" would >> return the same information in JSON. >> > > i like that idea. i hadn't thought of simply using an extension. i don't > have a strong opinion as to whether, e.g. /json/stat or /stat.json is > better. Anyone want to give me their own strong opinion? (We could probably > support both - they're stored as string-to-function mappings, but the > current path/arg-handling code would need to be slightly different for each > case.)
My strong opinion: whatever.json is better than json/whatever. It's a matter of semantics, if we want to render whatever in some representation, or we want a representation containing a whatever... I'd say the former. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
