• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:48:04 +0100

On 10/09/2012 15:49, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> But there's no reason it should be limited to error responses.  Why
> not provide a text/html version of an 'application/xml' or
> 'application/atom+xml' resource?
> http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/ can be negotiated
> as html, xml, atom, json etc., via Accept.

Mainly because while serving them all from the same URI might seem a
neat trick it has few practical advantages over serving them from
different URI, and the latter is much easier to set up as it only
requires rights to upload files to the server it doesn't require server
configuration, and serving them from the same URI makes it harder to
link to them from a web page as it inevitably means that you'll get the
html version in a browser when you might in some circumstances want the
html or json.

David

-- 
google plus: https:/profiles.google.com/d.p.carlisle

• References:
  • Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document at a URL as anXML document?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document at a URL asan XML document?
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • RE: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document ata URL as an XML document?
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
  • RE: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document at a URL asan XML document?
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • RE: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document ata URL as an XML document?
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>
  • Re: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document ata URL as an XML document?
    • From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@i...>
  • RE: Why does my browser treat the XML Schema document ata URL as an XML document?
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>