On 04/12/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > > Hang on, I'm getting different advice here, my understanding was > > that URI naming (picking good names) was an essential part of > > REST. If its an internal identifier then that isn't the case. > > > > So should REST URIs have carefully chosen names, or is banging at > > the keyboard randomly the prefered approach? > How often do you need to look at a URL to have your browser fetch the > page??
Well I type mail.google.com and other URLs to get directly to sites, but I wouldn't want to try for the auth key on gmail. But the question isn't here in a person clicking on the link (the one with the auth code) its in the initial link and the naming of that URI. > > But since sometimes humans are looking at the stuff you come up with, > http://iuwdwwwez.com/uuzuwe7266tzzzre/uhjfhh77r > is propably not ideal - as are variable names like that in source > code.... This to me is a cop-out, either URIs should be meaningful in REST or not, having a half-way house of "kinda" doesn't help anyone or add any sort of clarity and formalism. > > Jan > > > > > > > On 29/11/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > > > > o you are saying that it is _bad_ practice in REST to have sensibly > > > named URIs? > > > > URIs are opaque identifiers (just like object references in any OO > > language). You should > > not infer anything from a URI. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > >
