Re: Namespace and media types

[Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:23:07 -0400, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I know of no aggregator today that sends an Accept header.  (This is
> not to say it's a bad idea.)

Ouch. If there's interest, I will volunteer to write up a Pace for the
following types of additions to the API draft. I would personally
really like to see content negotiation used properly in atom clients
if at all possible.

For instance, 

1. GET requests for Feeds (and Entries should they get URIs some day
[+1 btw]) SHOULD/MUST contain:

   Accept: application/atom+xml 

2. PUT/POST requests containing Feed/Entry content SHOULD/MUST contain:

  Content-Type: application/atom+xml

3. POST requests that expect response content SHOULD/MUST contain:

  Accept: application/atom+xml

Where would be the best place to add content negotiation related
recommendations to the current spec? It seems like specifying this
somewhere around the various method definitions in Section 5
"Functional Specification" would work pretty well. For instance,
Section 5.1.2 "Functional Specification / PostURI / Request" and
Section 5.2.2 "Functional Specification / EditURI / Request" look
perfect for content negotiation related requirements.

Thanks,
Ryan