It still seems wrong to me, since the resource is the same, just a different representation of it, and thus it would seem that they should be represented by the same URI.
If the decision has already been made then so be it, I can live with it, but I still question it. Sincerely, Anthony Eden On 8/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
