- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 03:09:01 -0400
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
hello andy. On 2012-08-06 20:06 , "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >Erik's argument for REST depended on the endpoint understanding the >content format. Sometimes there are groups of applications around, say >ATOM or HTML5, that share some structure for links. But in general, >that limits a data-reactive loose coupling general LDP storage system if >it needs to grok the content to find links, types etc. i think that's where i disagree and where REST and media types take a different approach. for example, atom does not tell you which content format you must be using for individual entries. it codifies abstractions and interactions for a concept (collections and, in he case of atompub, write access to them) and the models necessary to represent state information of the collection (feeds as a set of entries), but the atom media type lets you freely choose which media type you're managing. many manage HTML with it, many others (podcasts) manage videos. all of this works because in REST, all you do is codify the "service surface", and there is no need to know what servers do behind the scenes, or what other media types are linked to from that part of the service surface that is covered by a certain media type. cheers, dret.
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 07:09:31 UTC