- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:48:52 +0100
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, public-web-http-desc@w3.org
Marc Hadley wrote: > Paul Downey and I discussed this over a few beers last night. I think > there's a tension between providing a loose description that is more > open to evolution but less useful in terms of code generation and a > description that is tighter but more useful for code generation. WADL > parameters are a nod in this direction, if the representation is > relatively simple and the description includes parameters then the > schema can be ignored when processing a received representation (you > just apply the XPaths and grab the information you're interested in). re: XPaths. You're assuming that the web service returns XML, rather than, say, RDF. In the latter case XPaths aren't much use unless you're working with a constrained RDF/XML syntax. Can I suggest that a requirement for a service description format ought to allow for both RDF and XML as representation formats? (Whether the description format itself should be RDF is a different issue). Cheers, L. -- http://www.ldodds.com/blog
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 14:49:13 UTC