Update to mention the correct content-type

[steveklabnik]

The IANA is currently reviewing my application for application/vnd.api+json. After this has been registered, we will need to update the docs.

[wycats]

I think we should explicitly allow application/json as well, because of the prevalence of libraries that support that format, but I realize I may be stepping on a land-mine here. @steveklabnik?

[steveklabnik]

It's a FAQ question. Because of the +, the type name means 'anything which can parse application/json can also parse this.'

[paddycarver]

Possibly a crazy question, but is it worthwhile to examine API versioning through Accept headers, and how this would interact with that? I know it's a popular way to version APIs.

[steveklabnik]

Versioning through accept headers is an anti-pattern. We won't be supporting it.

[paddycarver]

Well, that was an easy discussion. 👍

[steveklabnik]

:)

(technically, it can probably be backdoored anyway, since I doubt (when this becomes an RFC) that I will want to restrict parameters to the type, and so someone could introduce a 'version' parameter. But that's outside of this spec anyway.)

[paddycarver]

SGTM.

[steveklabnik]

This has been added. It's not fully registered yet, but says that.