Re: [SPAM] Re: [xml-dev] RESTful operations on document fragments'

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

Moberg Dale wrote:
> Simon St Laurent comments:
> That's RESTful?  For what definition of REST?
> 
> Moberg Dale continues in reply:
> 
> I will ignore the bait about "definitions". I can only point out that in
> the REST vs. XMLP wars, REST advocates defended the MTTP methods (POST,
> PUT, GET and the like) as indicating ("properly") the RESTful operations
> on the resource indicated in the HTTP command line. In WEBDAV we find
> HTTP extended, for example, by
> 
>    PROPFIND  /file HTTP/1.1
>    Host: www.foo.bar
>    Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
>    Content-Length: xxxx
> 
> That is, new HTTP methods were introduced. The introduction of new HTTP
> methods was discussed in this thread previously. What definition was at
> work for those who introduced those points into the discussion?

I guess I don't find adding verbs to be a plus for an architecture whose 
core strength is the deliberate decision to restrict the number of verbs.

REST is kind of HTTP--, not HTTP++.

> Anyway, some sort of WEBDAV lite seems to be what is being envisioned. I
> was just wondering about why reinvention was of interest. I remain
> unclear why you want to reinvent, but I am not discouraging you.

I guess WebDAV looks a lot to me like the recently proposed PATCH.  I 
don't think adding a huge pile of verbs is the right answer to a problem 
that consists primarily of needing to identify nouns more preciesely.

Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
Retired XML troublemaker