Yes, its a mechanism for shifting information from A to B so can clearly be used in theory for A2A and B2B.
Steve 2008/12/4 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/12/3 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I hope you agree that if and when we ever do get around to estimating the >>> number of RESTful designers/developers we can justifiably include in that >>> count some number of website designers, not just >>> application-to-application >>> interface designers. >> >> We can, with the proviso that they aren't of course fulling doing REST >> as they can't do PUT or DELETE from the browser. I've fairly regularly >> said that for the Website interaction side that I get the REST point, >> its always been on the A2A/B2B that I've had the issue and its there >> that I tend to find myself most of my working life. > > This was really all the agreement I was looking for. As I stressed in my > previous post, I wasn't really interested in getting into a debate about > REST adoption numbers. I was only interested in establishing some aspects of > what constitutes REST adoption. > Sorry I didn't realize that you were already on record as considering > website designers/developers as RESTful designers/developers so long as > their site designs reach some agreed upon threshold of compliance with the > REST constraints. I mistook your comment about websites having NOTHING to do > with estimating REST adoption, as an assertion that website > designers/develops have NOTHING to do with REST adoption under any > circumstances, ie websites designers/developers are categorically excluded > from discussions of REST adoption. > So to be sure I am understanding you correctly, would you agree with the > following statement? > REST can be adopted in A2A and B2B design/development, as well as website > design/development. > -- Nick >
