On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:24:45PM +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> >
> > Well, I don't like the extension approach at all,  because it is not
> > aligned with the REST idea that an URI is one resource, having different
> > representations.   Adding extensions means these are effectively different
> > resources , and have different URIs (even it will be hard to tell within RDF
> > representation these are the same objects!)
> >
> > URI parameters are little bit better (not ideal), in the sense the URI is
> > still the same.
> >
> >
> One more argument against extension came to my mind after sending the email
> - it will make AA much more complicated,  as we'll have to register multiple
> URIs about the same object into OpenSSO system ...
> 

>From a user/client point of view I would prefer the extension approach,
because it is

  - simple
  - intuitive
  - saves a lot of typing
  - downloads produce file names with correct extensions

I do not see a contradiction to REST priciples as extensions are just
another (commonly used) convention to specify the mime-type.
Internally the services should work of course with the base URI (e.g.
for AA) as the extension indicates another format, not another resource.

Best regards,
Christoph