On 3/22/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/21/06, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2006/03/20, at 12:20 PM, Ryan King wrote: > > > > > Also, html forms could be useful for documenting the parameters > > > available on rest resources. Mixed with microformats, as above, > > > this could be a very useful way to document a rest api. It would > > > cover much the same territory as WADL, but in a web-native way > > > which can be very useful to developers, as the forms are a > > > functional sandbox. > > > > Is that really the case? A form seems almost like a choreography to > > me (although I'm fairly ignorant of that world); i.e., it tells you > > how to do one task, rather than document the whole interface. > > > > E.g., if I have a resource that accepts GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, > > the form is probably only going to tickle one of those methods... You > > could put together a set of forms that covered all of the ground, of > > course, but for some tasks, that's pretty clunky. > > +1
Mark, I notice that form-based language in nature does not describe the output/response details, contrasting with several others service description language. I wonder what's the rational behind its design. -- Teo HuiMing (toydi) teohuiming.work at gmail dot com _______________________________________________ microformats-rest mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
