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.orgReceived on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 17:26:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:51 UTC