- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:38:03 -0400
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
Do you have a use case for this, Mark? On 4/27/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > Just thinking out loud -- not sure if this is a good idea or not. > > What if components were labelled with an indication of the revision > of the service that they were introduced with? > > E.g., > > <resource introduced="/revision/1"> > <method name="GET"> > ... > </method> > <method name="POST" introduced="/revision/2"> > ... > </method> > </resource> > > with rules for appropriate defaulting, etc. "introduced" probably > isn't the best name, but gets the idea across; the value should be a > URI-reference. > > This would allow clients to query the service for what revision it > implements, and then know what (backwards-compatible) changes are > implemented; it wouldn't have to optimistically try to POST, for > example. > > In doing so, backwards-compatible changes (e.g., adding methods, > adding representations, adding resources, adding optional query args) > could be layered into descriptions without losing information about > when they were introduced. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 16:38:13 UTC