Should you use Content Negotiation when building your web service?
The short answer is no. There are definite problems with
First let's back up and explain Content Negotiation. Your browser is
a generic display program and can take in various kinds of media, such
as HTML, JPEGs, CSS, Flash, etc. and display it for you. The first thing to
note is that each of those kinds of media have different mime types.
Each format has it's own registered mime type and when a client
does a GET on a URL it gets back not only the content but the response
also includes a
Content-Type: header which lists
the mime-type of what is in the body.
One of the interesting things about HTTP is that it allows
the same URI to have multiple representations. For example I
could have a URL that had both
representations. Now that leads to two obvious questions.
Let's start by answering question two first. The browser uses the
header to list out the mime-types that it is willing to accept. There is also a weighting
scheme that allows the client to specify a preference for one media type
over another. For example, here is the capture of some of the headers, including the
sent by Mozilla when it does a GET on a URI:
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,\ text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,\ image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif;q=0.2,*/*;q=0.1 Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,compress;q=0.9 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept: header list the mime-types that the browser can
handle along with weights of the form
q= where the argument
is a floating point number between 0 and 1. The weights indicate a preference
for that media type, with a higher number inidicating a higher preference. Note that
there are several bits of complexity I am going to ignore for now. The first is the last
type the Mozilla browser says in can accept, */*;q=0.1. This is a wild card
match, which will match any mime-type that the server could want to serve up. The second
is that there are multiple Accept headers, one for language, one for encoding, another
for charset. How these over-lap and influence the response sent won't be covered here.
Now to answer the first question. The server looks at the available representations
is has and servers up the one with the highest preference to the client.
Based on the
header it sends an appropriate representation back and indicates the type it
chose using the
This seems like a really cool and vastly under utilized feature of HTTP. It also seems particularly intriguing for web services. You could return JPEGs from that mapping service for the older client platforms, but also serve up SVG for the newer clients so they can scale and rotate their maps. What could possibly go wrong?
The first thing that could go wrong is a bug or mis-configuration on the client or the server.
This has happened to me in the
past. The W3C does conneg on some of their recommendations, returning either HTML or plain
text based on the clients capabilities. This is fine, but one day their server was
either confused or mis-configured because it would only serve the recommendation in
I really needed the HTML form, but after trying multiple browsers from multipe locations I could only retrieve the text
format. I ended up pulling the HTML version out of the Google cache.
The second problem that I ran across highlights the real core problem with conneg. I was
trying to use the W3C XSLT service to do some transformations on my web pages. Now the server side
software I use to run Well-Formed Web does conneg and can return either HTML or an RSS item
fragment for each URI. At the time I was serving up XHTML 1.0, which is valid XML and
thus good input into an XSLT service. So the way the XSLT service works is that you enter two URIs, one
for the source content and the other for the XSLT sheet to apply to the source content.
My transformation kept failing and it was because of the
Accept headers that the XSLT service sent when it went to retrieve the source content.
My server kept returning the RSS item fragment and not
the XHTML. Now this would have been fine if I wanted to apply an XSLT sheet to my RSS item fragment, but in this
case I wanted it to apply to the XHTML. Note that the problem could have been completely reversed, I could have
been trying to apply the XSLT to the RSS item and not to the XHTML and my server could have returned
the XHTML all the time. The crux of the problem is that when I gave the URI to the XSLT transformation
service I have no way of specifying what mime-type to request. I get no chance to tweak the
Let's cover that again to clarify. If I hand you a URI only, and that URI supports conneg, then I get no control over which representation you retrieve. In the cases where you are passing a URI into a service that is later going to retrieve a represenation from that URI, you really have no idea which representation it's going to get. That could mean that you end up passing your RSS feed to the W3C HTML validator, or you end up passing XHTML instead of RSS into an XSLT translator service, or you end up passing a 12MB PNG to a handheld instead of that 20KB SVG file. You end up with a problem that is hard to debug and one that wouldn't exist if each URI had only one mime-type.
Norman Walsh has also run into problems with Content Negotiation.
The issue of using fragment identifiers with conneg has not only come up but was important enough to merit mention in the W3C document Architecture of the World Wide Web.