[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
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
"URI".
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html :
[...]
Abstract
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of
characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource.
[...]
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.htm :
[...]
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
system.
[...]
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.
--
Bart.
|
