Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:01:29PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Bart Schuller wrote:
> >It makes no sense because it isn't true. It explicitly *DOES* use URIs
> >in precisely these two ways.
> REST's definition of resource identifier (URI) does not support the use
> of URIs in two different ways. It is an illusion that
> you can change the semantics of HTTP by providing an alternative
> definition of URI.
Considering that Roy Fielding who coined the REST name also co-wrote the
URI RFC, I find it hard to believe that REST would redefine the term
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of
characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource.
REST is not intended to capture all possible uses of the Web
protocol standards. There are applications of HTTP and URI that
do not match the application model of a distributed hypermedia
I agree that it can be frustrating when people run away with your
terminology and make it mean something else, but XTM and REST aren't
doing that to URIs.