[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Tim,
Tim said:
> The important difference is that that the RPC model, for safe/idempotent
> operations, can in principle be exposed as a URI. In practice, it can
> be done cheaply and easily (see my proposal over in www-tag). If it
> can be done, it should be done. Those who fail to see the benefits of
> placing the maximum possible amount of information in URI space just
> Don't Get It and have apparently slept through the last decade.
> -Tim
Didier replies:
Tim if I understand you well, your point is that we update the URI specs (or
create a new URI) in order to be able to perform method invocation. Since I
do not have access to all TAG discussions can I ask you if the first thing
that you suggest being standardized is about verb or method invocations?
There are some issues that need to cleared. Issues with actual URIs
a) size limitation
b) syntax encoding (in some URIs the spaces and other characters have to be
replaced by a different encoding)
c) verb vs. parameters encoding ( amore formal and standard way to encode
verbs and parameters)
d) type enforcement when necessary (there are time when the parameters have
to be conformant to a specific type, the receiving end needs to know that
and have access to a specification file a la idl, wsdl and tutti quanti).
cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
