David Powell wrote:
So I think it only really makes sense to do either:
i) The spec doesn't mention MIME types (it just references XOXO). The
assumption is that an HTML type is used, and nobody expects MIME
dispatch to work. If we aren't bothered about MIME dispatch then this
is fine.
ii) The spec names a specific MIME type for the introspection
document, the expectation is that all documents will have that type,
and clients depending on MIME dispatch can expect to work. But,
the XOXO document will probably not be browsable because it will
lack an HTML MIME type.
First, let's ignore the references to XOXO (or any specific format) for
now. These two options are the same for any representation format we
choose to go with: Either we have a MIME type or we don't. If we don't
have a single consistent MIME type, MIME dispatching for introspection
documents is thrown out the door.
Either option is possible, but I prefer ii).
Agreed.
- James
