On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: > As Kevin said, this does sound very similar to what we're discussing > over on microformats REST: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/rest/
Ah, thanks for the link. > I apologize for jumping into this thread late, but I'm curious > whether you *can't* use HTML, or just weren't planning to because you > didn't have a web browser in the loop. If the latter, I would > definitely encourage you to consider the XOXO option. I actually > think it would be straightforward to implement "REX" (REST-Enabled > XHTML) on other transports, in which case it would be germaine on the > microformats-rest list. I think at this point I'm too ignorant to be making any kind of decisions. Yeah, the reason that I wasn't planning on using HTML is because there aren't any web browsers in the loop anywhere. I can use whatever I want because, well, I'm making it all up as I go. At this point I'm still collecting information, but the only thing pushing me towards anything like HTML is the uf use of it. I've got a colleague who distinctly dislikes the HTMLy nature of uf and is so far pretty fond of RDF, but that's about all I have so far. I'm currently doing all communication over XMLRPC, but I'm sure it could just as easily be REST, XMLRPC is just the first thing I got working acceptably well. One of my other limitations is that I'm writing a tool that's responsible for managing systems from the most minimal installs, so I'm doing everything I can to stick to libraries that ship with Ruby to limit the list of prereqs that my users need in order to start managing their systems. -- I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy. --J. D. Salinger --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
