Re: RFC: REST-RPC

Bryan,


> Probably the most fundamental difference between the two is that
> REST-RPC doesn't use XML for the call.  It uses XML for the response,
> but the call is in a special language intended to go in the "parameter"
> piece of an HTTP GET header (I forget the actual name of that).  Here's
[...]
> This is supposedly good because "[web] browsers can call such services
> directly."  What does that mean?  I can see that I could type a call
> into the "location" field of my browser and get the XML response on my
> screen, and I can't do that with XML-RPC.  But what good is that?  Is
> there some other way browsers can use REST-RPC?

Sorry for taking so long to respond. The thread got lost in filters :-)

The importance of being able to use a browser is testability. If you
have API specifications and a list of your (test/production)
environments, then you can generate test forms. XINS does this, for
example:
http://xins.sf.net/demo/specdocs/myproject/MyFunction-testform.html

> One other difference pointed out is that XML-RPC lacks "Unicode
> support."  What does that mean?  I know XML-RPC involves Unicode in
> that it specifies XML, and XML is defined in terms of Unicode code
> points.  What Unicode capability does REST-RPC have that is missing in
> XML-RPC?

Officially, Unicode is not supported in XML-RPC. So if you want to be
compatible, you should not use it. See:
http://www.xmlrpc.com/discuss/msgReader$2129

Regards,


Ernst


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/