W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [ISSUE-32] Implications of updates on protocol, regarding HTTP methods

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:04:43 -0400
Message-ID: <1fc9c2ff0907291204o64cba810l6e9b0523aeb46014@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org> wrote:

> From section 2.2:
> "The queryHttpGet binding should be used except in cases where the
> URL-encoded query exceeds practical limits, in which case the
> queryHttpPost binding should be used."

Ah, that seems fine since the URL-encoded bit makes it clear what's
under consideration.

>>> Option 2 appears to offer the least difficulty. Are other options available?
>> It's reasonable to expect that this option will have a high public
>> cost as it's a style of HTTP interface that is frowned upon by some
>> people. And in my experience their frowning can be quite costly to
>> process during Last Call, etc. FWIW. :>
> It may do, and I acknowledge the point. However, there seems to be
> popular support for a language that can perform updates (including
> with my users), and the only network interface I like using these days
> is HTTP.

Sorry, I wasn't that clear: of course, I'm talking about people who
will object that "overloading POST" is *not* good REST style or isn't
RESTful at all, not people who will object to the use of HTTP per se.

Some people want to inspect each request; others think this is
craziness, so I don't think there's anything that will satisfy

>  Hopefully, the inclusion of the REST-style interface will go
> some way to mollifying those people you're referring to.

No, my point is that Option 2 will *not* be seen as REST-style by some people.

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:05:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC