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

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

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:05:31 -0800
Cc: "'Erik Wilde'" <dret@berkeley.edu>, "'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>
Message-Id: <42913609-202D-45E4-8BDB-948E8E58C55C@subbu.org>
To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>

Eric and Mike,

I am not convinced that URI templates will reduce that disparity. The  
point I was trying to make yesterday was that, when these servers  
become the same, the server will be using a media type like HTML, and  
hence will have to follow the same techniques that HTML clients follow  
*today*. So, IMHO, the argument for templates should be discussed on  
its own merits for HTML.

Subbu

On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> Well said; I concur with this analysis and this goal completely.  
> Adding URI
> Template support to HTML forms reduces the disparity between what  
> can be
> done with a "website" and what must be done with an "RESTful API  
> server" per
> se.
>
> There ideally should be as little technical difference between the  
> two where
> the client is given the option to view it as it may. Without URI  
> Template
> support HTML forms will continue to be 2nd class citizen when  
> compared to
> other solutions for interacting with REST-based web services.
>
> While this hadn't been part of my original reason for request URI  
> Template
> support in HTML forms it's now clear it is probably a more important
> justification than my original. Thanks Erik.

---
http://subbu.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 17:26:59 GMT

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