Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Ian Docherty wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTRQ_Headers.html#z12
Yes, I have done this previously, it is elegant, but not RESTful and
does not make it easy for users to change their settings on a
site-by-site basis dynamically, as you could if you provided a
language selection box on each page.
Why do you say it's not RESTful?
I think it's very RESTful, but it depends on how you think about it.
If the language of the content is basically an issue of "formatting",
then switching language based on a header is perfect. The client
provides sufficient information to produce a correct response _on each
request_ as part of HTTP. This is basically the essence of REST.
OTOH, if you consider each language's content fundamentally separate
things, then each language should have its own set of URIs.
Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. I did not (and still don't)
consider the language of the content as 'formatting', the content for
each language is different (in my mind).
I don't really want this to start another flame-war about RESTful etc.
this point is outside of my original request so I won't respond (on
list) to this off-topic subject any more.
Regards
Ian
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
