Thank you, John. That is it. - Luke
On 10/26/05, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Arno wrote on 10/26/2005, 5:18 PM:
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Well, when you want users to browse it, use text/html.
> >
> > The details of when to use which are up to the
> > implementer.
>
> Luke, let me attempt a translation of what I think you mean into
> something that might be more palatable; let me know if I'm off base:
>
> The spec names a specific MIME type for the introspection document, and
> the document must be served with that MIME type when used within the
> context of the spec (e.g., link rel="atom introspection").
>
> Implementors are free to also provide the same information, at a
> different URL[*], with a MIME type suitable for display in a browser.
> Atom-aware clients doing introspection must accept the Atom specific
> MIME type, and are free to accept the browser compatible MIME type.
>
> Since it's trivial to accept both, in reality nearly all clients will
> accept either when handed the explicit URL.
>
> [*] Yes, one could also explore the use of the Accept: HTTP header in
> this context. To paraphrase a bit: Accept: header. Very dangerous. You
> go first.
>
> --
> John Panzer
> Sr. Technical Platypus
> http://journals.aol.com/panzerjohn/abstractioneer
>
>
>
