Hi, I am using APP with ROME. I wonder if it is correct that the APP standard supports "text/plain", "application/xml", "application/rdf+xml" etc. in the <content type=""> - or just "text", "xml" etc. as I think the current version of ROME supports now.
If it supports <content type="everything"> I am glad, this means that the server could understand different content formats POSTed or PUT to the server on the same edit uri. However, I wonder if there are any other way to allow content negotiation of the format of the content type than using <link rel="N3" type="text/n3" url="otherurl">. It seems to me that the downside of using APP as a Web Service Protocol is that it is not as HTTP-linked as I thought. I guess the HTTP Accept header is already used for "application/atom+xml" so is there any other way than the <link..> approach? Any other HTTP headers that could be used? Could you specify "application/xml" as the second preferred data format, and would it be logical to let the server use this to decide which format to serve in the content? Do you agree that this is a weakness of the APP, or are there some clever workaround / best practices regarding this issue? Thanks, Erling
