On 08/15/2011 01:47 PM, Kinkie wrote: > Sounds good, but it'd also be nice to allow the user to simply force a > format. How about using Accept when no format is specified by the > user?
IMO, Accept is how the user should specify the format in all cases (including "forcing" a specific format if only one format is Acceptable). I doubt we need to introduce a "filename extension to content type" mapping because the Accept header offers the same standard (and better) functionality. However, I cannot strongly object to adding extensions, as long as the current CGI syntax is preserved. Cheers, Alex. > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Alex Rousskov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/11/2011 06:19 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> This adds support for multiple output formats in the manager actions. >>> >>> As discussed earlier it makes use of the file extension concept. >>> >>> For example: /action.html >>> >>> Would pass "html" in the format parameter. If the action is able to >>> produce HTML output, it can test for this format type and do so. The >>> default format is "txt" for backward compatibility. >> >> Should not the best response format be selected based on the Accept >> request header instead? >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Alex. >> > > >
