3459HTML form representations vs. resources (was: Re: [rest-discuss] Rebel)
- Mar 3, 2003[started a new thread because this has nothing to do with Rebel..]
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 03:01 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> a given piece
> of content might also have an "editor" representation which
> encapsulates the content in a Web-based interface for editing and
> saving said content. Hence, I've got URIs like:
i just thought i would chime in and mention that i am using a similar
technique for web editing interfaces. i have found that it doesn't
make sense to have only a form-oriented HTML representation because
e.g. drop-downs are problematic (read: impossible) to use hyperlinks
with, and a pure HTML representation (with no form HTML) doesn't let
you do any editing unless you're running some fringe client agent like
so i have a HTML representation, and put the form-HTML representation
in a seperate resource. i look at the form as a subordinate resource
rather than just another representation.
i would be interested in hearing what others think of this, pros/cons
etc. my original thought process was that HTML forms don't have their
own mime-type, (e.g. text/html+forms) so conneg was not an option.
so i would have something like:
a GET on this gets you a HTML page with a form rather than 'normal'
HTML; this form's target attribute is set to
the form does a POST but i pre-process this on the server to actually
> This allows all of these things to be directly accessed by simply
> GETting them, rather than having to dip into conneg. AND it works well
> for alternate representations that have some associated functionality,
> beyond just this or that static format.
i was going to suggest that perhaps "Content-type" or something would
be a better name than "repr" but deja-vu tells me this has come up on
this list before.
off-topic tangent: try
google doesn't seem to have crawled any archives of rest-discuss;
bummer. sometimes i hate yahoo groups. i wonder whether the archives
are hidden from crawlers behind their ads.
i do think its important that people use standard attribute name/values
for this though. otherwise interoperability will suffer big time, IMHO.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>