- From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:55:49 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
Hi Mark, what is the intended consumer of this format? Thanks. Jan On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Most of the Web description proposals that I've seen model methods > as discrete things in the context of a resource, e.g., > > <resource name='Example'> > <method name="GET"> > <representation type="text/html">...</representation> > ... > </method> > <method name="PUT"> > <representation type="text/html">...</representation> > ... > </method> > <method name="POST"> > ... > </method> > </resource> > > I'm wondering if this is a good approach. While it makes sense to > differentiate these things in code (because you need to glue the > different methods to the implementation), it seems to me that non- > POST methods are special; they have fixed, well-known semantics and > operate on the state of the resource. > > Because of this, I'm wondering if it makes more sense to talk about > the state of the resource as a first-order concept in the > description, rather than operations on it (which don't need as much > description); e.g., > > <resource name="Example"> > <representation type="text/html"> > <allow>GET PUT</allow>. > ... > </respresentation> > <post> > <input type="...">...</input> > <output type="...">...</output> > </post> > </resource> > > That's just a straw man, I can see other formulations. The point is > to encourage people NOT to think of this in terms of WSDL operations. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > ________________________________________________________________________ _______________ Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer http://jalgermissen.com Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT' http://www.tugboat.de
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 18:01:30 UTC