11432RE: [rest-discuss] RE: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0
- Nov 1, 2008Erik Wilde>> ( mike, please correct me if i am wrong. )
You are right, thanks. You explained it in a way that hadn't occurred to me
to explain it; loose coupling is very good.
From: Erik Wilde [mailto:dret@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Subbu Allamaraju
Cc: Mike Schinkel; 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'Jerome Louvel';
whatwg@...; uri@...; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] RE: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> I see the use cases, but what is the server gaining with thisthe question is more how many page authors will be able to reliably develop
> flexibility? In other words, how many servers out there are going to
> benefit from this technique?
forms against services/servers? i think mike's idea is pretty good because
it increases loose coupling between clients and servers.
on today's web, forms and services are more or less tightly coupled, and
they almost are developed as one thing. mike proposes an architecture that
introduces a more loose coupling, because a form is able to interact with
more services than before.
( mike, please correct me if i am wrong. )
> Not having templates in forms does not violate URI opacity since HTMLyes, but if you have some service out there that expect certain URIs, then
> forms do follow a well-defined and well-understood approach to
> construct a URI from form parameters.
currently it is not possible to build a form for that, unless the service
does expect form-encoded data. mike's proposal would allow forms to interact
with a much wider set of services.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>