Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Mike Champion) writes:
>Sorry, I just don't buy that. For GET (and PUT/DELETE in theory but
>not widespread practice) HTTP defines a reasonable and useful
>contract. But much of the real Web that really works is a bunch of
>arbitrary stuff POSTED from HTML forms or whatever, and the "CGI"
>details are the interface that matters if you are writing a form to
>work with existing back end code or back end code to process a form.
>My point was that this interface is no more late bound than a "Web
Perhaps it's not later bound, but it's very different stuff. The stuff
posted from a form is just nouns, and the handlers in the CGI script are
there to accept the nouns. The stuff posted from a Web Service is a mix
of nouns and verbs, and it generally seems to me that bindings about
verbs are more nastily complicating than binding to nouns, whenever it
happens to take place.
So long as CGI is about handling nouns inside the HTTP contract, I think
Bill is right that:
>>[CGI] has nothing to do with the Web's client/server contract.
Then again, I've argued more than once that REST has too many verbs, and
that passing nouns from place to place should be enough.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org