proposal: new list: microformats-rest (was Re:
[microformats-discuss] REX! Re: REST-discuss list, naming)
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Fri Oct 21 17:20:36 PDT 2005
I've mostly stayed out of this excellent discussion.
>From everything that I can tell, Ernie has essentially discovered a whole
new world that can benefit from use of microformats.
I'd like to see this discussion continue and grow, and I have a feeling that
we can as many discussions about microformats and REST as we can about usage
of microformats for content on web pages.
The microformats-discuss list has a very broad membership, and while a
high-percentage are I'm sure following the microformats and REST discussion
quite well, there's also other folks here who would probably focus more on
the content / data format aspects of microformats, and the styling aspects.
So what do people think of creating a new list, microformats-rest,
specifically for the discussions about microformats and REST?
P.S. Before we first created microformats-discuss, we thought of perhaps
creating separate lists for each microformat, for focussed discussions. But
then we realized that perhaps that would be overkill, and how would we know
which topics/microformats would be "popular" enough to warrant their own
lists? We decided to just start with one, and then let the market decide.
When enough focused discussion around a particular topic emerged, and if we
believed the discussion would grow on an ongoing basis (rather than just
being a "popping" phenomenon), we would simply create a list for it.
microformats-rest seems to fit that criteria.
On 10/21/05 1:28 PM, "Joe Gregorio" <joe.gregorio at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's actually a lot more going on here. Joe, if you get some time,
>> run through these:
>> (I think this is the latest, the url keeps changing)
>> I've been watching from afar but the proposal is much more than just
>> using XHTML w/ existing REST technique. Briefly,
> Yeah, I have concerns too if this is the proposal.
> The biggest problem
> is that HTML over HTTP is already RESTful. Every web page with a form
> is already a self-descriptive hypertext document on how to compose
> the request.
>> 1. Constraining REST verbs to POST/GET
> As for restricting to POST/GET, that's the wrong direction to be moving
> in, just look at Web Forms 2.0 for what's coming in the next version
> of HTML.
>> 2. A system for constructing URLs.
> There are already several systems for construction URLs,
> for example the one included in
> HTML, and OpenSearch.
>> 3. Discovery through URL construction as opposed to hypermedia.
> Hypertext as the engine of application state is an important
> concept, one I've written an entire article on .
>> 4. Limiting transfer representations to application/x-www-form-urlencoded
> I'm not gonna really comment on that except to point out that
> uploading a video encoded in application/x-www-form-urlencoded
> is going to be a bit wasteful.
>> I'd like to hear your feelings about some of these proposals as I have
>> reservations about a few of them (especially #1, #2, #3, #4).
> I've got my own ideas about how microformats intersect
> with RESTful web services that I've outlined in ,
> in general seeing everything through my Atom colored
>  http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/
>  http://opensearch.a9.com/spec/opensearchquerysyntax/1.1/
>  http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/06/restful.html
>  http://bitworking.org/news/What_do_you_see_in_Web_2_0_
> Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss