Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11435Re: [rest-discuss] RE: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0

Expand Messages
  • Subbu Allamaraju
    Nov 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:

      > that is a circular argument. and in many cases, if you are building
      > a RESTful service primarily intended as an API, then URI design for
      > it will look very different from form-encoded data.
      > i think the main question is whether HTML should look beyond
      > services designed specifically for backing forms, or not. it
      > certainly could without harming backwards-compatibility, and one
      > could also argue that this would actually promote the design and
      > implementation of services with more well-designed RESTful APIs than
      > form-encoded data. seen this way, such a feature would be a pretty
      > smart way of slowly improving the state of how services are provided
      > on the web.

      Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I find that argument a

      If I understand correctly, Mike's argument for supporting templates is
      to avoid requiring JS support. So, a RESTful server that needs to be
      consumed by a browser without requiring JS support has just one option
      - that is to use a media type that can be recognized by browsers,
      which is HTML. That is, it uses (X)HTML representations, supports
      query parameters and forms. The so-called API server therefore becomes
      a web server.

      I can understand the merits of URI template support for HTML on its
      own, but I don't think it is correct to argue that such a support will
      make it easy to consume APIs.

    • Show all 25 messages in this topic