does it? Sorry, haven't done any rails for a long time - I thought t was the other way round.
- K On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Mike Bailey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Korny Sietsma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One trick I've seen is people serving up application/json if the Accept >> header includes it, but otherwise, providing a html wrapper that >> pretty-formats the json. Can't remember where I've seen that, but it seemed >> a clever way to make a json UI a bit more user-friendly for dumb users. > > > JSON is no place for 'dumb users'. > > Incidentally, what are people's thoughts on serving json based on the URL >> (i.e. ending in ".json") vs based on the Accept header (i.e. the Rails way)? >> > > I think accepting both is the most flexible. > > Rails supports '.json'. Did you mean the other way round? > http://www.goodfordogs.org/latest/2.json > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > -- Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com http://korny.info "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
