On 3/28/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/24/06, toydi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If forms are the only service description exposed to users, it seems > > not containing enough info to let users to pre-configure their user > > machine to handle potential response documents. Does it mean that we > > need *something else* to expose more info? or do I miss some key > > points here? > > The Accept header? That and standardized formats seems sufficient to > me. On the other hand, since these formats would be microformats, > then Accept might as well be hardcoded to "text/html". 8-)
Accept header is issued by users side (request) about what they prefer to handle, but I wonder how service side would announce what users should be prepared to handle. Several description language proposals [1] (e.g WADL, WIDL) are designed to announce possible response/output details. However, interestingly, form-based languages seem to ommit that part (intentionally?) at all. Why is it better to delay the knowledge of response document details to execution time (during a response is returned)? This looks like what a form does on purpose.. ;-) Taking an example in [2], we can provide a form to describe the "Arguements" section, but not "Example Response" section. So, should we ommit that, or need an extra W*DL document to describe the response? [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebDescriptionProposals [2] http://del.icio.us/help/api/posts Cheers, -- Teo HuiMing (toydi) teohuiming.work at gmail dot com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
