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

Re: [rest-discuss] Re: Getting schemas

Expand Messages
  • John Kemp
    ... It seems to be under discussion in the IETF HTTP WG - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/thread.html#msg46 Regards, - John
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Griffin Caprio wrote:
      >
      >
      > Is that header still valid? I can't seem to find much info about it
      > anywhere.

      It seems to be under discussion in the IETF HTTP WG -
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/thread.html#msg46

      Regards,

      - John

      >
      > - Griffin
      > On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:54 AM, John Kemp wrote:
      >
      >> Could you use an HTTP Link: header (http://esw.w3.org/topic/
      > <http://esw.w3.org/topic/>
      >> LinkHeader)
      >> to get the WADL if you have the URI of the resource?
      >>
      >> For example:
      >>
      >> Link: meta.wadl; rel=meta
      >>
      >> - John
      >>
      >> Marc Hadley wrote:
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
      >>>
      >>>> Marc - I think GET's more appropriate, because that WADL is, in
      >>>> effect, a form, and forms should be first class hypermedia
      >>>> representations returned by dereferencing a URI.
      >>>>
      >>> Right, there's something meta about WADL that made me think that
      >>> OPTIONS would be a good choice but I take your point.
      >>>
      >>> Marc.
      >>>
      >>>>
      >>>> On 9/11/07, Marc Hadley <hadley@... <mailto:hadley%40sun.com>
      > <mailto:hadley%40sun.com>>
      >>>> wrote:
      >>>>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Griffin Caprio wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> OPTIONS would be interesting. I've just been using it to return
      >>>>>> acceptable methods, a la "Allow: Post, Get". I supposed returning
      >>>>>> a resource would work too. As first thought, something like:
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> http://www.foo.com/ <http://www.foo.com/>
      >>> <http://www.foo.com/
      > <http://www.foo.com/>><resource>/<action>/<request,response>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> would return the representation format for a particular actions
      >>>>>> request or response. But this doesn't feel to RESTy to me.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>> I meant returning a WADL[1] resource description, e.g.:
      >>>>>
      >>>>> OPTIONS on http://foo.com/resource <http://foo.com/resource>
      > <http://foo.com/resource <http://foo.com/resource>> would
      >>> yield a response with the
      >>>>> allow header and the following in the response entity body:
      >>
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.