- From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@subbu.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:05:31 -0800
- To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Erik Wilde'" <dret@berkeley.edu>, "'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>
Eric and Mike, I am not convinced that URI templates will reduce that disparity. The point I was trying to make yesterday was that, when these servers become the same, the server will be using a media type like HTML, and hence will have to follow the same techniques that HTML clients follow *today*. So, IMHO, the argument for templates should be discussed on its own merits for HTML. Subbu On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Well said; I concur with this analysis and this goal completely. > Adding URI > Template support to HTML forms reduces the disparity between what > can be > done with a "website" and what must be done with an "RESTful API > server" per > se. > > There ideally should be as little technical difference between the > two where > the client is given the option to view it as it may. Without URI > Template > support HTML forms will continue to be 2nd class citizen when > compared to > other solutions for interacting with REST-based web services. > > While this hadn't been part of my original reason for request URI > Template > support in HTML forms it's now clear it is probably a more important > justification than my original. Thanks Erik. --- http://subbu.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 17:26:59 UTC