- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:04:43 -0400
- 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 everyone. > 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. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:05:43 UTC