Erik- I'm not sure if this address the question exactly, but you might look at:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01891.html In our system (like Sam Ruby's message says), we typically have multiple links w/ same URL & @rel but each has a different media-type: <link href="http://example.com/some-resource"; rel=" http://example.com/relation/edit-json"; type="application/json"/> <link href="http://example.com/some-resource"; rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml"/> (well, in practice we had trouble w/ conneg so we also attach an extension on the URL, but in theory that's not needed) I know there was a thread somewhere (here or rest-discuss ??) about using @type to hold, essentially, an accept header, but there were lots of (good, I think) arguments about why that was not a good idea. I'll pass along if I find it. --peter On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Erik Wilde <[email protected]> wrote: > > hello. > > in the context of some work we're doing that is attempting to describe > RESTful services, one important problem is how to deal with media types. for > HTTP URIs, servers can return various media types and this may happen via > HTTP content negotiation. Atom's link/@type links to a URI and specifies a > media type, but this mechanism supports only one type that can be specified. > does anybody have any opinion or experience or best practice what to do in > scenarios where that URI is actually supporting content negotiation? > > thanks and kind regards, > > erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814 > [email protected] - http://dret.net/netdret > UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) > >
