Re: conneg considered harmful
"Eric J. Bowman" <[email protected]> Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:17:06 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Organization | Bison Systems Corporation |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> > BTW - i'd be happy to see user-agents support client-driven > negotiation. i used to think this meant common browsers MUST be the > leaders for a feature like this. but recently i've started to think > that native-built mobile clients could start to turn the tide on what > features show up in the pipeline. > +1, and +1 to [1] and [2] while I'm at it... Browsers are truly becoming their own, undefined architecture. REST may become unfeasible as a model for browser-based system performance, which hardly means it won't continue to be the ideal, or that resources will cease to exist as an abstract concept even if TAG replaces the term in AWWW v2. It merely opens the door for exactly what Mike just said -- leadership on features/performance passes to native apps which aren't precluded from leveraging REST to the hilt. The problem with declaring REST a dinosaur (and deprecating application/xhtml+xml, removing Content-Type, ignoring interoperability in favor of versionless "standards" etc.), is it's still adapted to its environment -- HTTP over an anarchic, end-to- end Internet, no habitat loss I can see... Personally, I find the UX I'm subjected to on most every site could still benefit from the developers undertaking to learn a bit about REST even though everything about it except buzzwordiness has gone out of vogue lately, to the point I find it pointless to continue to comment on www-tag, particularly as my concern about updating HttpRange-14 not only wasn't responded to but judging by the minutes, wasn't even considered. It's been shown that sniffing binaries is a security hole, but I guess we'll just put out those fires as they flare up for the sake of not having to talk about resources/representations even though it's also been shown [3] that resources exist. </rant> -Eric [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0001.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jun/0014.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jun/0028.html