W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2008

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

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:01:49 -0800
Message-ID: <49109C1D.1070100@berkeley.edu>
To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org>
CC: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Jerome Louvel'" <contact@noelios.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, uri@w3.org, rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com

hello.

> 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.

supported representations can be determined dynamically by content 
negotiation, and the idea would exactly be that there is no difference 
between these two things you call "API server" and "web server". they 
are RESTful servers supporting RESTful interactions. some of them may 
decide to support XHTML representations, others may not. but i don't 
think we should make that distinction of servers; on the contrary, i 
think the web should take every step possible into a direction where 
that perceived difference between "API servers" and "web servers" 
disappears, and where technologies that somehow create that distinction 
(such as HTML forms) are fixed (with reasonable transition strategies in 
place).

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 19:03:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:41 GMT