On 06/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/5/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm getting really confused as to how a link traversals meaning is > > documented via a media type, unless of course you create a whole new > > ontology of media types for every project. > > The basic idiom is little nuggets of information like so; > > <StockQuote href="http://example.org/stockquote?symbol=GOOG"; />
So its not the media type, its schema defined element (similar to port type and the like in WSDL) that determines the meaning? > > That is, using the syntax and semantics of the media type, the > publisher provides information about the URI(s) in the document > instances it publishes. Consumers of the documents can then use that > information to decide whether or not they want or need to interact > with the resource(s). How is this information published, for instance the Schema and meaning of each of the GET/POST/etc operations that are valid for the resource? Media type itself has no real semantics (i.e. it doesn't say meaning) its just syntax (type). I'm getting more confused here rather than less over what is good REST, it appears to be that pretty much anything can claim to be and there is no formalism that can be used as the starting point for B2B REST interactions. I like the way you are implying that readability is a good thing, but Jan's view of opaque appears (to me) to be the opposite to what you are proposing. > > Mark. > > > > > > > > > If you have a URI and no clue what to do...do a GET and follow your > > > nose[1]. > > > > Sounds like debugging via printf on an application someone else wrote.... > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
