Brian Ploetz wrote: > This seems to be promoting URLs that are not "cool" > (http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI) by requiring the format (.html, > .xml, etc) as an extension. That kind of stinks......
Thats good news. Obviously, HTTP clients cant yet be trusted to provide proper headers. So relying on them is problematic. I personally like the typed urls because it makes it super easy to grab things in a variety of formats without any complicated header trickery. I can do it right in my browser. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
