Re: [ogpx] Notes from my parts of the VWRAP session

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

Mark Lentczner wrote:
> **9) No one had concerns or issues with the addition of query 
> arguments to LLIDL. However, within Linden's internal LLIDL user 
> community there has been requests for also adding path arguments. 
> While the VWRAP design currently doesn't use either of these 
> facilities, experience has shown that backends would like to make use 
> of both. Implementors prefer to use one type and validation system 
> consistently throughout if possible, and so it seems reasonable to add 
> them here. I'm looking for experience and input on these issues before 
> proceeding with further design.

Just to clarify from IETF session chat to make sure we are on the same page:

This is an acceptable standard query: /Resource/Path/<uuid>

This is not standard, but an acceptable customization: 
/Resource/Path/<uuid>?encode=text&format=json

We shouldn't expect the customization to be supported across the board 
on all implementations. Instead, from feedback and various reads, we 
should make use of the Content-Type: field where possible instead of 
path arguments.

For example: Content-Type: text/json

Or: Content-Type: application/xml+llsd

Other operation arguments are probably best found in the body of the 
query rather than the header.

Please clarify further is this what was not intended.