- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:34:05 +0100
- To: "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
On 6/1/06, Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org> wrote: > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebDescriptionUseScenarios?highlight=%28CategoryWebDescription%29 > > Other use scenarios that come to mind: > > 1. Comparing descriptions of two API's. For example, scuttle may > claim to implement some/all of the del.icio.us API. > 2. Ability to mark a subset of an existing API; again, for example, > to show what subset of the del.icio.us API another similar service implements. Wouldn't you learn that via HTTP response codes? e.g. 404 if a resource wasn't there, 501 if a method wasn't supported, etc..? > Another interesting aspect of interface description is > redirection. For example, [1] will redirect to [2]. Right, but again, that's information available in the HTTP response. If you try to describe, in a separate document, that redirection action then you've just duplicated information that is already trivially accessible to clients. Is there some advantage to doing this that I'm not seeing? Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 14:34:18 UTC