Re: Content types and links
Peter Williams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK5Vdzw3pfQOY0fnynqC8MB5asEOJqZy+EeV-jc6wJUs_y3DrQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Greg Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would it seem off to you that I gave you the alternates? Putting alternate links in the body is ok, but putting them in the HTTP header as link header fields[1] would better. It would make them visible to clients that do not understand how to interprete your particular flavor of JSON. Those clients are likely to be the ones that need alternate links the most. Also, you should strongly consider identifying your flavor of JSON with a vendor media type. Doing so allows clients to request (and interprete) its particular semantics. Having a specific media type is particularly helpful if/when you are going to serve more than one flavor of JSON. For example, if a standard atom+json ever really did come to fruition you would probably want to support both, for a while at least. [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 Peter barelyenough.org