- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:46:16 -0400
- To: Joseph Hui <Joseph.Hui@exodus.net>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:56:08PM -0700, Joseph Hui wrote: > Your system may get away with not knowing "get;" but it can't get away > with not knowing "quotes/" (instead of "prices"), "stocks/" (instead > of "equities/"), "sunw" (instead of "msft"). That is, it requires > a priori info of some sort just the same. If one really wants to stick > with the protocol-intrinsic GET, then > http://Nasdaq.com/what=quotes&type=stocks&symbol=sunw would also work, > though it comes across as a kluge. My interest lies more in using > named parameters (as opposed to positional parameters) for its > superior flexibility than in "RESTing" orthodoxically. Well, this is a separate issue (that I happen to disagree with, because the URI could be http://www.yahoo.com/hv7q84f5334857 for all I care - i.e. it is opaque[1] to everybody but the publisher). The purpose of this thread was to establish whether or not GET was an application semantic. I believe I described why it was, even when a method is in the URI, at least when the client doesn't have to know what the method name means (i.e. the URI remains opaque to it). I also described why the publisher could have problems with putting a method name in the URI if doing so is requiring additional a priori agreement between the two parties. Maybe the horse is dead now. 8-) [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 08:36:07 UTC