W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-http-desc@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Use Cases

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:34:05 +0100
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0606070734v4dd5acd4t685fed633827a679@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>
Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org

On 6/1/06, Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebDescriptionUseScenarios?highlight=%28CategoryWebDescription%29
>
> Other use scenarios that come to mind:
>
> 1.  Comparing descriptions of two API's.  For example, scuttle may
> claim to implement some/all of the del.icio.us API.
> 2.  Ability to mark a subset of an existing API; again, for example,
> to show what subset of the del.icio.us API another similar service implements.

Wouldn't you learn that via HTTP response codes?  e.g. 404 if a
resource wasn't there, 501 if a method wasn't supported, etc..?

> Another interesting aspect of interface description is
> redirection.  For example, [1] will redirect to [2].

Right, but again, that's information available in the HTTP response.
If you try to describe, in a separate document, that redirection
action then you've just duplicated information that is already
trivially accessible to clients.  Is there some advantage to doing
this that I'm not seeing?

Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:34:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:11 GMT