- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:24:39 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-web-http-desc@w3.org
On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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. > I think there could be cases where different combinations of representation format and method are allowed/supported where grouping of everything except POST might result in a lack of expressivity. I suppose you could allow the representation element to repeat to cover those cases if they are in the minority. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 18:24:45 UTC