- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:01:49 -0800
- 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
hello. > If I understand correctly, Mike's argument for supporting templates is > to avoid requiring JS support. So, a RESTful server that needs to be > consumed by a browser without requiring JS support has just one option - > that is to use a media type that can be recognized by browsers, which is > HTML. That is, it uses (X)HTML representations, supports query > parameters and forms. The so-called API server therefore becomes a web > server. supported representations can be determined dynamically by content negotiation, and the idea would exactly be that there is no difference between these two things you call "API server" and "web server". they are RESTful servers supporting RESTful interactions. some of them may decide to support XHTML representations, others may not. but i don't think we should make that distinction of servers; on the contrary, i think the web should take every step possible into a direction where that perceived difference between "API servers" and "web servers" disappears, and where technologies that somehow create that distinction (such as HTML forms) are fixed (with reasonable transition strategies in place). cheers, dret.
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 19:03:41 UTC