On 05/12/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > > 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. > > Dunno, but I think it has been said before in this thread that from a > REST POV, URIs are simply opaque identifiers.
So in other words it is _important_ for REST that the URI be meaningless? (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/opaque?view=uk) opaque: difficult or impossible to understand So surely this means that the examples I used with sensible names that mean something are therefore _not_ REST as they are easy to understand. Given therefore that REST URIs are meant to be unintelligable (which I really don't understand as to why that is a good thing) how do you communicate to consumers what URIs to use? What is the way of documenting URIs to consumers? > > Jan > >
