Hi, > > Not necessarily. The HTTP spec mentions headers explicitly for content > > negotiation > > (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec12.html) > > and there might be enough cases where a resource (!) happens to have a > name > > ending with .html without implying that it is actually HTML. The server > > selects the representation that is being sent and the server determines > how > > to value headers or not. > content negotiation is certainly an interesting capability, but IMO > poses a lot of problems. for example, i don't want another > representation of a document (for the same url) just because my > browser locale is different. if the urls are not stable, the documents > can't be cached, which is bad.
Correct, but we are talking about POST, PUT and DELETE requests that are not being cached, so that does not matter. > > > it's very logical, that a foo.html and foo.pdf are different > > > representations of the resource foo. > > > > > > > Only if you forbid having foo.pdf and foo.html as two different > resources > > in the same path. In that case you would have foo.pdf.html and > foo.html.pdf > > and foo.html.html and foo.pdf.pdf. > which i would find very confusing. Then we should forbid JCR nodes with a dot in the name. This would mean there are certain applications, where I cannot use Sling anymore, for instance because it is impossible to get an HTML preview of a PDF or an XML with extracted XMP metadata for a JPEG, but it might be less confusing. I wonder how you could fulfill anything except a narrow set of requirements with these restrictions. > > I have read this before, but I still do not understand why. You mention > not > > a single real use case that would be broken through my proposal. > as i said, i fear problems if non-existent and existent resources are > treated differently. What are the problems that you fear? Fear, uncertainty and doubt are no good basis to brush away my valid requests for a broken behavior. Furthermore, we are not treating existent and non-existent resources differently. You POST, PUT, DELETE to the base URL of the resource, you GET from the base URL plus selectors and extensions. This is not treating existent and non-existent resources differently, it is treating GET requests differently, which is a good thing and something we are doing anyway (or where is POST.html.esp) regards, Lars
