W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2008

RE: [rest-discuss] RE: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0

From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:11:28 -0400
To: "'Erik Wilde'" <dret@berkeley.edu>, "'Subbu Allamaraju'" <subbu@subbu.org>
Cc: "'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>
Message-ID: <038901c93c7f$8e0d28b0$6702a8c0@Guides.local>

Erik Wilde>> ( mike, please correct me if i am wrong. )

You are right, thanks. You explained it in a way that hadn't occurred to me
to explain it; loose coupling is very good.

-Mike Schinkel 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wilde [mailto:dret@berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Subbu Allamaraju
Cc: Mike Schinkel; 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'Jerome Louvel';
whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; uri@w3.org; rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] RE: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for
WebForms 2.0

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.


Received on Sunday, 2 November 2008 00:12:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:51 UTC