Re: ATOM representation of search result facets
Erik Wilde <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
hello peter. On 2012-09-04 4:43 , Rushforth, Peter wrote: > That doesn't, of course, make it not useful. HTML is extended every > which way, and typically no signposts are > added to the message to indicate the nature of the extensions. It might > be useful in feeds to indicate that > they are georss-enabled, and which profile of georss, for example. > But IMHO, such extensions are not in the 'architectural style' of the web. look at profiles as a convention of how to signal that clients might expect something. to some extent it just means there's an easier way to find out that a representation follows some additional constraints and extensions, that's all. it seems that what you're saying is that in order to be properly RESTful, each and every extension needs to mint a new media type. for well-designed extensible media types (such as atom), i would claim that this actually would be a bad idea. you would have a media type for plain feeds, one for GeoRSS feeds, and one for podcast feeds. and would you also have a media type for GeoRSS-enabled podcast feeds? and all other possible permutations of all extensions? i don't think that scales very well, and as long as these things are feeds (i.e., can be used as feeds and behave like feeds), i would argue they should be served as feeds. cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:[email protected] - tel:+1-510-2061079 | | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |