> I was just browsing through the ActiveResource code and I wonder why > the use of .xml throughout on the URLs? Wouldn't it make more sense to > just have ActiveResource set the content type to application/xml and > then use paths without the extensions?
In general, I think we're moving away from the idea of using the Accept header as the primary way of determining the content type. The extension makes a lot of things simpler. Including page caching, scanning logs (you can easily tell HTML requests apart from XML ones), and off-hand exploration (curl http://example.com/people.xml). So given that direction, I want to make sure that Active Resource is encouraging that behavior. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
