Re: Bookmark 'stability'

Steve Klabnik wrote:
>
> > Maintaining obsolete URIs is not an example of "coupling" as
> > applies to REST.
> 
> It is an incredibly clear violation of servers controlling their own
> namespace. Seriously. I don't even know why this is contentious.
> 

Wow, no, that isn't what Roy meant at all.  An example of a server not
controlling its own namespace, is one which must for one reason or
another support "/well-known".  Or, one which supports an API with an
entry point which must be called "/entrypoint" on any server which
implements it.  Or find customers by plugging an ID into "/customer".
These are not RESTful concepts -- in REST, hyperlinks drive application
state, and "/customer" could just as easily be "/foo", the name of the
directory is irrelevant to the API because it's provided in hypertext,
not API documentation.

OTOH, supporting an old URL because people have bookmarked it, is
clearly up to the developer.  And, as it can be implemented in DNS as a
redirect, has nothing to do with the web server's namespace.  It's a
design choice which is not, repeat not, in violation of any REST
constraint.  This meme that supporting old URLs amounts to coupling,
needs to be killed off, now.

-Eric