- From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:24:30 +0200
- To: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
Hi Mark, while going through the archives I cam across a posting by Paul Downey that IMHO contains a spot-on question regarding what might go into a RESTful description language. Unfortunately, you never seemed to provide your opinion. Here is the critical part; It would be great if you could post your opinion. Paul asked[1] Mark: <quote> Would you be happy if a description language didn't use the word 'operation' but, say 'pattern' or 'task' and gave those patterns non-symbolic names, e.g. 'add a link' rather than 'addLink'? Or are you heading towards having nothing more than a list of the resources available, and an assumption that all the HTTP verbs can be applied to each resource? If so, that's less than the current simple HTTP API publishers [delicious, flickr,..] already provide in their English descriptions. </quote> IMHO, REST mandates the "less than the simple HTTP API publishers already provide" because it introduces sort of a hidden contract and breaks HTTPs API uniformity. Jan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-http-desc/2005Jun/ 0072.html
Received on Thursday, 6 July 2006 08:24:41 UTC