norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2003/07/02/conneghttp://norman.walsh.name/2003/07/02/conneg/comments.atom2012-02-13T04:23:25.519853ZComment 1 on /2003/07/02/conneghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012006-01-06T01:14:35Z2006-01-06T01:14:35ZNoah Slaterda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

"Content negotiation can cause some pretty subtle failures."

I disagree. B.A.D. clients can cause some pretty awful problems when they abuse the protocols and RFCs. It's not content negotiation that is to blame here.

"Is it really worth it?"

When everyone follows the rules, I think it's more than worth it.

Comment 2 on /2003/07/02/conneghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022006-11-15T09:50:37Z2006-11-15T09:50:37ZJerome Louvelda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I think it's time to reconsider content negotiation, see my blog post.

Comment 3 on /2003/07/02/conneghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032008-03-03T04:14:30Z2008-03-03T04:14:30ZDaniel’s notebookda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

[Transparent] content negotiation is just yet another feature that the guys over at Microsoft has managed to break for everyone.

Comment 4 on /2003/07/02/conneghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042010-04-13T15:28:22Z2010-04-13T15:28:22ZBrotherda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Is this problem of content negotiation now solved with the canonical tag?