- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:05:41 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
On Jun 19, 2005, at 6:24 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > It's just that the service provider has already defined the > operations to their service by virtue of adopting HTTP. The > operations > a client might want to use from their programming language (e.g. > "searchByISBN") are none of its business, and moreover, they'd be > lying > if they said they offered them... or else, if they actually did offer > them, then they wouldn't be RESTful. Either way, it's not anything I > think a Web friendly description language should involve itself with. Agreed; I can see how you read that into the first one (which is why I don't have much taste for it), but how does that follow from the second one (tarawa-style, for those that remember)? POST is a special case here, of course; that said, it should still be defined in terms of POST-this-media-type-to-get-that-one. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 04:05:54 UTC