Anthony Eden wrote: > 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?
I believe it was David in his presentation "Discovering a World of Resources on Rails", that made a good point about the use of extensions that put any concerns I initially had to rest. It went something like, xml is a good extension because it represents the actual content vs. an extension like php, asp, etc. which represent which scripting language was used on the server side. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
