Records formatting

[leplatrem]

Accept HTTP directive may not be enough to format records.

For example, getting the records of a model which contain a geometry as JSON may have two formattings :

• a basic JSON (as currently : [ {...}, {...} ])
• a GeoJSON ( { "type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{...}, {...}]), that integrates nicely in JS map widgets like Leaflet.

Both are valid JSON. We might need a ?format=XXX parameter to specify which layout it should have.

[almet]

OH, we could actually use vendor specific data in the Accept / Content-Type fields. For instance "application/geojson+json" / "application/json" ?

[leplatrem]

AFAIK there is no consensus for geojson mimetype.

I used application/geojson : we could use application/geo+json, but @sgillies does not seem to like it :)

How do we trigger the geojson serializer otherwise ?

[sgillies]

You're right, I don't like application/geojson or application/geo+json :) And we can't just make up new application media types, they need to be registered.

I recommend following http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906 and adding a profile media type parameter like

application/json; profile=http://example.com/profiles/geojson

We'll have a standard GeoJSON profile URI at some point, but I'm not sure what it would be. In the meanwhile, you can make one specifically for your spiral-project GeoJSON files.

[almet]

Profiles might effectively be an idea. It also means we need to extend SPORE to support this concept and check cornice / pyramid allow this easily.

[leplatrem]

Thanks Sean for taking time to give hints on that !
It's completely new for me, but looks just the right thing :)