[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>
>...
> >
> > But, the first is a reference to a resource. The latter two are queries
> > and (arguably) not resources in their own right. Queries have slightly
> > different semantics. For instance, queries are constructed by the client
> > whereas normal hierarchical URIs should be treated as opaque.
>
> Queries *can* be constructed by the client, but they needn't be. I can
> certainly have "query-string URL's" embedded in my documents. In fact,
> in order for a client to construct a query, it needs external schema
> information: the field names.
That's why it doesn't matter much, but does matter a little. When I see
a query URI I am going to either ask you for the schema so I can
generate my own queries or not bother and just figure out the schema
based upon my common sense. That's what I do when I see a query URI.
Whereas, when I see a hierarchical URI, I am supposed to treat it as
opaque (or at the very least *hierarchical* as opposed to as a query).
--
Come discuss XML and REST web services at:
Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com
Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
|
