- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:01:15 -0700
- To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org>
- CC: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Jerome Louvel'" <contact@noelios.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, uri@w3.org, rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subbu Allamaraju wrote: > I see the use cases, but what is the server gaining with this > flexibility? In other words, how many servers out there are going to > benefit from this technique? the question is more how many page authors will be able to reliably develop forms against services/servers? i think mike's idea is pretty good because it increases loose coupling between clients and servers. on today's web, forms and services are more or less tightly coupled, and they almost are developed as one thing. mike proposes an architecture that introduces a more loose coupling, because a form is able to interact with more services than before. ( mike, please correct me if i am wrong. ) > Not having templates in forms does not violate URI opacity since HTML > forms do follow a well-defined and well-understood approach to construct > a URI from form parameters. yes, but if you have some service out there that expect certain URIs, then currently it is not possible to build a form for that, unless the service does expect form-encoded data. mike's proposal would allow forms to interact with a much wider set of services. cheers, dret.
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 17:02:30 UTC